Backhoe Hydraulics Reliability Improvement - ASQ · 2019. 9. 23. · 1 Backhoe Hydraulics Reliability Improvement ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award 1 Founded in 1945 in Uttoxeter

1

Backhoe Hydraulics Reliability Improvement

ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award 1

Founded in 1945 in Uttoxeter by Joseph Cyril Bamford, hence JCB.

2

JCB Group

22 PLANTS

770 DEALERS

+

2200 OUTLETS

+

150 COUNTRIES

+

12,000 EMPLOYEES

+

Five factories

5,000+ Employees

8 Product Lines

50+ Products

380+ Local Suppliers

60+ Dealers

650 Outlets

JCB India Operations

JAIPUR

PUNE

DELHI-NCR

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqjd3ptLPWAhVJULwKHVvXCPUQjRwIBw&url=http://www.freepngimg.com/flags/india&psig=AFQjCNFfNZN2ewnRtGEO6-0S--a4tx4zfQ&ust=1505984827381086

3

Section 1:

Project Background & Purpose

5

High Level Context

6

Source: www.focus-economics.com

GDP Growth Rate

F u t u r e w i l l T R A N S F O R M I N D I A

Infrastructure Deficit Opportunity

4

JCB “Business Excellence Framework”

1.01 Organizational Approach to Project

Planning

One Global Quality

Drive overall Customer Satisfaction

Maintain Product Leadership

7

1.02 Project identification Process (General)

JCB’s Aspiration based on VOC:

Fault Free Product

Break down free machine

Zero issues in 3 months of Warranty (T3)

Customer centric solutions

End application based solutions

Uptime & productivity to drive prosperity

8

5

1.03 Project Selection Process (General)

Confidential absolute values not shared

One Global Quality Chart (T3) – Oct-16

Gap

Objective : • Best in Group 3 months

Warranty (T3)

9

Structure:

Main Frame Boom/ Dipper Buckets

Backhoe Loader Sub-System Introduction

Hydraulics :

Rams & Valve Blocks Hoses

Proprietary :

Wheel Rim, Tyre/Tube Radiator

Paint :

Skin Part Fabricated Parts

10

Power Train:

Engine Gear Box

Cab & Electrical:

Cab Door Locks , Cluster

6

Hydraulic Cab &Electrical

Proprietary Powertrain Paint Structure

Project Goal:

Hydraulic subsystem Faults per

Machine (FPM) reduction by 50

% by Dec-2017

1.04 Project Selection (Specific)

T3

Fau

lts

pe

r m

ach

ine

T3 FPM – Subsystem performance

Objective : • Best in Group 3 months

Warranty (T3)

11

Focus Areas

S. No. Sub-System FPM contribution

% (A)

Avg Downtime

(B)

Voice of Customer

(C)

Total Score (A*B*C)

1 Hydraulics 5 4 4 80

2 Cab & Electrical 4 3 4 48

3 Proprietary 3 4 4 48

4 Powertrain 2 4 5 40

5 Paint 1 3 4 12

6 Structure 1 5 5 25

Selection Prioritization Matrix

Rating FPM contribution

Downtime hours

VoC

5 >30 % >24 5

4 20-30 % 5-24 4

3 10-20 % 2-5 3

2 1-10 % 1-2 2

1

7

Selection Prioritization Matrix is a combination of Performance Data & Customer Perception

13

1.04 Project Selection (Specific)

T3 Faults per

Machine

Average Machine

Downtime

Voice of

Customer

Enhanced Product

Reliability

Improved Perceived Value

Brand Quality Image

Increased Market Share

Uptime & Productivity

MTTR

Customer Satisfaction

Loyal, Repeat Customers

Severity Severity Occurrence

Detection

2016 Target 2017 2016 Target 2017

14

1.05 & 1.06 Project Goals & Benefits & Success

Measures/Criteria Identified

Hydraulic 3 months warranty targets (T3)

50 %

2016 Target 2017

Fault free %

20 %

Leak per machine

50 %

Area Tangible Benefits

Reliability (1 year warranty) + 40%

Part Inventory - 30%

MTTF + 20%

Reduction in warranty cost - 25 %

Intangible Benefits

Customer Delight & prosperity

Skill Development of team

Sustain Market leadership

Reduced Cost of Ownership

Additional Benefits

Fault per machine

8

2.0 Project Template

PROJECT STATEMENT

PROJECT TYPE

ASSUMPTIONS/EXPECTATIONS PROJECT SCOPE

BUDGET (Financial and/or Resource Constraints)

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Backhoe Hydraulic Subsystem warranty fault per machine is the largest contributor to customer dissatisfaction.

(Based on T3 FPM Data : Jan-16 to Oct-16), Hydraulic subsystem 3 months warranty faults per machine reduction by 50 % by Dec-2017.

Project is based on Six Sigma DMAIC approach (Design, Measure, Analysis, Improvement & Control).

Jan-16 to Oct-16 warranty data considered as base data for improvement.

Validation cycles planned considering 3000 hours of machine clocking in a

year .

Machine upkeep & timely preventive maintenance during validation of design

change.

Machine usages on both Loader/Excavator application considered for testing

& validation.

Test rigs availability at JCB & supplier as per project schedule.

In Scope:- All Hydraulic parts in Backhoe machine:

Hydraulic Cylinders

Loader & Excavator Valve blocks

Hydraulic Breather

Hoses, Feed pipes & Adaptors

Others

Out of scope:- Other Models (Loadall, Skid steer, Excavators etc)

Budget allocated for Relia-soft & Minitab software in Quality for 2017

Provision kept in 2017 budget for testing & validation for design changes

Travel budget to be used for supplier & field visits

Project Statement

Backhoe Hydraulic Subsystem warranty fault per

machine is the largest contributor to customer

dissatisfaction.

(Based on T3 FPM Data : Jan-16 to Oct-16)

Specific Goal

Hydraulic subsystem 3 months warranty faults per

machine reduction by 50 % by Dec-2017

Project Scope

In Scope:- All Hydraulic parts in Backhoe machine:

• Hydraulic Cylinders

• Loader & Excavator Valve blocks

• Hydraulic Breather

• Hoses, Feed pipes & Adaptors

• Others

Out of scope:- Other Models (Loadall, Skid steer,

Excavators etc)

16 Confidential absolute values not shared

2.0 Project Framework/Charter

Budget

• Budget allocated for Relia-soft & Minitab software

in Quality for 2017

• Provision kept in 2017 budget for testing &

validation for design changes

• Travel budget to be used for supplier & field visits

Project Approach

Project approach is based on Six Sigma DMAIC

(Design, Measure, Analysis, Improvement & Control) Approach.

9

Assumptions

17


• Jan-16 to Oct-16 warranty data considered as base data for improvement.

• Validation cycles planned considering 3000 hours of machine clocking in a year .

• Machine upkeep & timely preventive maintenance during validation of design change.

• Machine usages on both Loader/Excavator application considered for testing & validation.

• Test rigs availability at JCB & supplier as per project schedule.

Project Risk & Mitigation

RISK MITIGATION

Budget constraint • Additional budget requirement to be taken up with project sponsor

Team availability • Weekly Project progress review with Project Manager (Head Quality)

Required competency • Skill matrix development & need identification • Supplier support in seal design & Chrome Plating • External training on Reliability tools & Program management

High Inventory level • Stock controls in advance for timely implementation of changes

Un-predictable Failure during validation

• FEA analysis & Supplier level validation is to be ensured before JCB Validation

Project schedule


18

W44 W45 W46 W47 W48 W49 W50 W51 W52 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26

Project identification

Team formation

Project Charter sign off

Team skill matrix & need

identification

Training plan

Data collection- individual

part wise

Process mapping - SIPOC

Failure part analysis

Possible causes

Potential & final root cause

Root cause validation

Possible solution

Final Solutions

Solutions validations

Execution of final solution

Change documentation

On line MIS/command

centre

Jun-17Activities Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17

Improve

Control

Define

Measure

Analysis

Skill matrix, supplier tie-ups, external training plan

Data collection : Joint inspection -warranty returns with product support

Joint field visits, end application studies

10

Suppliers Input Process Output Customer

Suppliers:

Hydraulic Ram

Valve block

Hyd. Breather

Hoses

Assembly manpower

Machinery

Tools & Fixtures

Child parts

Assembly Shop

Oil Cleanliness

Torqueing

Orientation & Routing

Backhoe Loader

Hot test

Product Support

Dealers

End Users

3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified

Stakeholder Who Role

Project Sponsor BU Head • Drive Strategic objectives • Drive organization goals • Monthly Management review meeting

Finance CFO • Budget allocation • Pricing approval

Purchase VP • Supplier engagement • NQCRPM reviews with Supplier top management

Design AVP • Design reviews, timely ECN release • Design testing & validation

Manufacturing GM • Weekly Project reviews • Drive QCD targets

Product Support AVP • Drive MTTF, First time fix, parts availability

Business Partners Suppliers • Ensuring QCD goals, legal compliance

Customers Dealer / End Users • Customer satisfaction survey/feedbacks

Internal

External

19

20

3.02/3.03 Project Champion & Team selection

Management Review Meeting - Monthly

Frequency of

Project update

Project Review Meeting - Weekly

11

3.04 Team Preparation

21

External supplier support

taken :

• Polymer Technology

•Chrome Plating

Team training done on

•Reliability tools

(ReliaSoft)

• Program management

San

jay

Ch

ou

dh

ary

Taru

n

Sh

arm

a

Am

it A

ro

ra

Jayd

ev N

egi

Su

rd

eep

Mo

r

Bin

od

Sin

gh

Su

darsh

an

Yad

av

Kap

il

Marw

ah

Bh

up

en

der

Jagla

n

Pro

ject

Lead

er, G

M

Su

pp

lier

Qu

ality

, A

GM

Pro

du

ct

Su

pp

ort,

SM

Cu

sto

mer

Qu

ality

, M

Hyd

Lead

Bu

yer, S

M

En

gin

eerin

g,

SM

Ru

bb

er &

last

ic, S

DE

Pro

cess

Qu

ality

, A

GM

Pro

du

cti

on

, M

Metallurgy

Hydraulic Process

Rubber & Plastic Process

Machining

Welding

Problem Solving, 6 Sigma

Chrome Plating

Program Management

Change Management

Team Management

Technic

al S

kill

sStr

ategi

c S

kill

s

Mem

ber

Ro

le

Skill Matrix for Project Team

Training required Can complete task

under supervision

Can complete task

without supervision Can train others

22

Team Routines & Communication

Activity Routine How Recorded Responsibility

Project Team Meeting Weekly Project Tracker

Timeline/ Milestone Chart Project Leader

Management Review Meeting Monthly Project Template Project Sponsor

Specific Functional/Stakeholder Reviews As required Functional Trackers Project Leader

Supplier & Field Visits As required MoM through e-mail Project Members

Team Meeting Field Tracker Project Review Field Visits

3.05 Team Routines

S.No RequirementJCB Rating

(0-5)(Current)

Observations Action Plan

1

Quality Organization Structure: Availability of Quality

Organization Structure; Supplier Quality/ Process Quality/ Final

Quality/ Development & Quality Planning roles should be

covered; Roles & Responsibilities clearly defined; Quality

Manager empowered; Linkage with voice of the customer;

Quality Manager sharing Quality risks with Plant Managers

4

- Qual i ty organization s tructure ava i lable with proper reporting s tructure.

- Mr. Ranganath i s heading plant Qual i ty with reporting to Jayanth (India

Qual i ty Head).

- Roles ava i lable with Suppl ier Qual i ty, Customer Qual i ty & process Qual i ty

with clearly defined respons ibi l i ty.

- Qual i ty Manager has taken ini tiatves on technol igica l front to reduce the

FPM : Ba l l Press ing on port holes , double chamfer in tube to avoid foul ing

with pis ton seal , buffer sea l project, welding configuration, snap ring extra

hole deletion etc.

Qual i ty Managers need to s tart critical monitoring

of time parameter to become more effective.

2

Reactive Quality: Adherence to JCB response time (Immediate

containment, Corrective action in 14 days); Quality of response

in 5Why/8D, prevention against escalation level increase (from

1.1 ->1.2->2->3). Record of previous problems, Holding the gains

: updation of JCB A3 sheet, PFD,PFMEA, control plan, visual aids,

check sheets etc based on previous problems; verification

mechanisms of previous problem

3

- 2015 Performance :

- Hot Test : No issue since Jun-15 , Total 5 rams replaced in 2015 (as on date)

against 28 rams in 2014.

- Current T3 : 0.030 (Reporting Sep-15) , against 0.05 ( Reporting Jun-2014)

- Current T12 : 0.19 (Reporting Sep-15), aginst 0.32 (reporting Jun-2014)

'- Hot test & field trend are showing improvement. Though cons idering the

Target of Zero T3 Leaks & < 100 PPM target , Wipro i s to be ensure cons is tency

in Hot test performance with s tep change improvement s teps regarding T3.

- Hot Test Issues : Al l five i ssues reported ti l l now in 2015 , closed thorugh

8D within 14 days of i s sue receipt.

- For field rel iabi l i ty improvement - buffer sea l has been suggested

speci fica l ly for Excavator, Slew rams. Field seeding has been done with NOK

& SIMRIT make seals . No issue observed in NOK make seals in T3 , where as

one fa i lure observed in SIMRIT make s lew ram.

- For welding fa i lures out of 47 , 25 i ssues are rea l ted to Excavator Bucket

only. HEC s ide feed pipe orientation change request i s received on 23 Sep-15.

- In few cases AVON feed pipe have been found punctured. No robust action

plan evident to ensure no repeati tion of the problem.

- Wipro needs to present < 100 PPM plan to

ensure zero fa i lures in Hot test in cons is tent

manner. To be presented by Wipro in 9 Oct-15

QBR.

- Steering Ram 8D actions for early hour i ssues

of sea l reverse fi tment not closed in effective

manner.

'- Weld improvements needs to be tracked in

field for fa i lures & JCB is to kept informed

regarding any a larm in field.

- Packaging & transportation improvements

suggested to avoid any trans i t i s s ie (re-cyclable

packaging etc).

Quality Progress ReportSupplier Name: M/s Wipro Peenya



Team formation



identification

Training plan


part wise



Possible causes



Possible solution

Final Solutions




On line MIS/command

centre

Improve

Control

Define

Measure

Analysis

Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17Activities Nov-16 Dec-16




12

4.01 Project Approach

The Hydraulics sub-system FPM improvement project used a typical Six –sigma approach of DMAIC with below mentioned activities :

Define Measure Analysis Improve Control

• Baseline study

• T3 FPM

• Sub-System wise distribution

• Top Contributors

• Labour/ Warranty claims

• Target Setting

• Data collection

• Part –wise contribution (Pareto)

• Hour –wise distribution

• Dealer-wise distribution

• Failure-mode wise distribution (Warranty attribution – ASD)

*(A- Assy, S-Supplier, D-Design)

• Root cause analysis

• Field return part analysis

• End application studies

• Possible causes

• Potential & final root causes

• Root Cause Validation

• Generating Solutions

• Validate & Implement solutions

• Standardization

• Change Management

• Communication

• Team Recognition

23

4.02 Tool Used Throughout Project


• BHL T3 Plot chart

• Voice of Customer

• Prioritization Matrix

• SIPOC Analysis

• Stake Holder Power Interest Analysis

• RACI Chart

• Skill Matrix

• Data Analytics

• Pareto Analysis

• Pie-Chart for major contributors

• Scatter diagram

• Scooping Tree

• Cause & Effect Diagram

• Why-Why analysis

• DOE Studies (Factorial Experiments)

• Box-Plots

• Hypothesis Analysis

• Process Capabilities studies

• Reliability Analysis (B5 Values)

• Brain Storming

• Finite Element Studies

• DOE Studies

• Response optimizer

• Interaction Plot

• Bench Marking

• Design FMEA

• Process FMEA

• Re-PPAP

• On line SPC/ Controls charts

• Periodic Process Audits

• Periodic Layout checks

• Quality MIS – End of Line (EOL) Right First Time Ratio

24

13

4.03 Tool output at different stages of Project

25


• BHL T3 Plot chart – Comparative analysis

• Voice of Customer- Opportunities for improvements

• Prioritization Matrix – Highest contributor

• SIPOC Analysis – Process interaction & stake holders identification

• Stake Holder Analysis – Power & interest mapping

• RACI Chart – Responsibility allocation

• Skill Matrix – Competency levels & gap area

• Data Analytics –DBMS data screening & categorise into sub-systems

• Pareto Analysis - Subsystem distribution - Cylinder wise failure distribution

• Pie-Chart - Contribution of Hydraulic parts in warranty FPM - Failure modes wise distribution

• 4 Quadrant warranty analysis– Dealer wise, hour wise analysis

• Scooping Tree–Identify types of failure mode

• Cause & Effect Diagram –Identify possible causes

• DOE Studies (Factorial Experiments) – Significant factors

• Hypothesis Analysis -To verify the hypothesis statistically

• Process Capabilities studies -Process variations, shift from mean

• Benchmarking - with Heavy duty application machine

• Brain Storming – Gather ideas

• DOE Studies – Interaction Plot

• Bench Marking

• Process FMEA – Risk Analysis & mitigation

• Reliability Analysis – Box plot comparative analysis, B10 life

• Process Capabilities studies (before & after) -Process variations, shift from mean

• Re-PPAP





4.04 How Team was prepared to use tools

Forming : Created Sense of Urgency, Buy-in

Critical

Success

Factor:

Hydraulics

Failures

Storming : Individuals thoughts on approach

Ap

pro

ach

Fin

alized

Tra

inin

g N

eed

s

Norming : Training session Performing : Team Objectives aligned to Project

Sh

are

d C

om

mit

men

t

Project

Goal:

Hydraulic

subsystem

FPM

reduction

by 50 %

by Dec-

2017

26



Team formation



identification

Training plan


part wise



Possible causes



Possible solution

Final Solutions




On line MIS/command

centre

Improve

Control

Define

Measure

Analysis

Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17Activities Nov-16 Dec-16




14

4.05 Dealing with Project Risks

Risk Mitigation Action Status Remarks

Budget constraint • Additional budget requirement to be taken up

with project sponsor

• Project : No additional budget required

• Product improvement : Cost approval taken during Improvement phase

Team availability • Weekly Project progress review with Project

Manager (Head Quality)

Required competency

• Skill matrix development & need identification • Supplier support in seal design & Chrome

Plating • External training on Reliability tools & Program

management

• External training taken during

Define phase on Reliability & Program management

High Inventory level • Stock controls in advance for timely

implementation of changes

Minimum stocks level calculated as : • Cylinder assembly level – 24 days • Child part level – 42 days

Un-predictable Failure during validation

• FEA analysis & Supplier level validation is to be ensured before JCB Validation

27

4.06 Encountering and Handling Resistance

Mechanism to

anticipate resistance Resistance Anticipated

Change in product design

Increase in cylinder cost due to

design modification

Salvaging of Old Stock

Steps taken to mitigate resistances

Joint field workshops with Project team to

understand end applications & duty cycle

Reliability improvement with warranty cost

reduction worked out & elaborated

Advance Design change information ensured

for smooth implementation

Technical Review of

Solutions done with

Design Team

Central Purchase

Quality Team

Product Support

Team

Assembly Team

Finance Team

Resistance on the expenditure

needed on Foot Print upgrade

Detailed Business Case prepared to justify the

expenditure

Design Team

Materials

Finance

Central Purchase

28

15

4.06 Encountering and Handling Resistance

Prior mitigation plan to counter resistance helped in

minimizing the actual resistances during implementation

S. No. Resistance Raised by Addressing Resistance

01

Cylinders sealing design change with no

interchangeability with machines already

in running in field.

Product Support Technical bulletin was released to encounter

the problem for field.

Resistance identified in Project Meeting

29

4.07 Stakeholders involvement in Project

30

Interest of Stakeholders

Pow

er o

f St

ake

hol

der

s

Connect through Weekly & Monthly

meetings

Kept satisfied through brainstorming inputs

& factual data points

Direct involvement in root cause analysis

Closely managed by involvement in

- Decision making

- Consulted regularly

Continuous information through team meetings

Direct involvement in root cause analysis

Customer

Assembly Product Support

Finance

BU Head

HR

Quality Design

Purchase

Supplier

Business Stakeholders

Governance Stakeholders

Technology Stakeholders

Operational Stakeholders

16

5.01 Walkthrough specific tool output


• BHL T3 Plot chart – Comparative analysis

• Voice of Customer- Opportunities for improvements

• Prioritization Matrix – Highest contributor

• SIPOC Analysis – Process interaction & stake holders identification

• Stake Holder Analysis – Power & interest mapping

• RACI Chart – Responsibility allocation

• Skill Matrix – Competency levels & gap area

• Data Analytics –DBMS data screening & categorise into sub-systems

• Pareto Analysis - Subsystem distribution - Cylinder wise failure distribution

• Pie-Chart - Contribution of Hydraulic parts in warranty FPM - Failure modes wise distribution

• 4 Quadrant warranty analysis– Dealer wise, hour wise analysis

• Scooping Tree–Identify types of failure mode

• Cause & Effect Diagram –Identify possible causes

• DOE Studies (Factorial Experiments) – Significant factors

• Hypothesis Analysis -To verify the hypothesis statistically

• Process Capabilities studies -Process variations, shift from mean

• Benchmarking - with Heavy duty application machine

• Brain Storming – Gather ideas

• DOE Studies – Interaction Plot

• Bench Marking

• Process FMEA – Risk Analysis & mitigation

• Reliability Analysis – Box plot comparative analysis, B10 life

• Process Capabilities studies (before & after) -Process variations, shift from mean

• Re-PPAP





31

Opportunities for improvements Voice of customer

Prioritization Matrix – Highest contributor RACI chart Skill Matrix

SIPOC Analysis Stack Holder Analysis

5.01 Data driven Project flow: Define

Define Phase work covered in section 3 & 4 32

One Global Quality Chart (T3) – Oct-16

17

5.01 Data driven Project flow: Measure

Ram - 1 (2 nos.)

PISTON ROD

TUBE

CAP END COVER

PISTON

HEAD END COVER ROD EYE

Rod seal Piston seal

Ram - 2 (2 nos.)

Ram - 5 (2 nos.)

Ram - 6 (2 nos.)

Ram – 7 (2 nos.)

Ram - 3 (2 nos.)

Ram - 4 (2 nos.)

Background – Hydraulic Ram details

33


Data Analytics

Hyd. Subsystem Part break-up

Build Month

DBMS (Dealer Business Software big Data)

Measure Phase work covered in section 3 & 4 34

Ram wise failure distribution

18

All 8 Rams warranty data analyzed – Rod seal failure emerged as highest contributor


• Piston rod Dent : 0.010 • Arching : 0.006

Pie- Chart – Failure distribution Pareto Chart – Failure modes

35

Exc. Bucket Ram : Warranty analytics Dealer wise failure distribution Hour wise failure distribution

Planed joint field visit

Seal worn out issues in late hours

59%

72%

84% 90%

96% 100%

Rod sealfailure

Piston sealfailure

Chromeplating failure

Weld failure RamAssembly

isssue

Other

Data Analyzed Top Failure Modes- Identified

Scooping Tree

A

S

Supplier

S

Manufacturing

Process

Failure Pareto Chart

D

Design

D

A

Rams Failures Mode

Rod seal

failure

Weld

failure

Piston seal

failure

Chrome plating

failure

Cylinder

assy. issues Others

5.01 Data driven Project flow: Analysis

36

19


180 field return sample analysis

Field visit - 3Gs

approach(Gemba, Gembutsu

& Genjitsu) – to understand

end application

Possible Causes Validation Potential Causes

Highlighted with red colour

Failure Mode 1 – Rod Seal Leakage 37


Hypothesis analysis on Cleanliness

Rt not maintained during rod grinding DOE : Pressure spikes with Duty cycles, current sealing

DOE Study – Rt has direct impact compare to Ra

Failure Mode 1 – Rod Seal Leakage 38

20


Failure Mode 2 – Piston Seal Failure

Root cause simulation with cavitation affect

Reliability curve, B10 life Tensile Strength Benchmarking with Excavator piston seal

39


Failure Mode 3 – Chrome Plating Failure (Process controls at sub-supplier)

Failure stratification – based on platters

Failure stratification – based on Plating thickness Root cause validation with

benchmarking

Adhesion issue

Chrome eaten away

40

Worst effected Partially effected

21


Final root cause established based on detailed validation

Failure Modes Final Root Causes Root cause Validation

• Piston rod surface finish (Rt values)

• Pressure spikes

• Oil Cleanliness values

• Burnishing process before port

welding (causing roundness error)

• DOE study – Box plot

indicate Rt is a significant

factor

• Pressure spike linked with

duty cycles affects seal life

• NAS value direct affects the

seal life

• Localized roundness error

created by burnishing process

• Piston seal O ring hardness (70

shore A)

• Less tensile Strength of Seal –

under pressure spike condition

• Under cavitation O ring failed

due to less hardness

• Seal tensile strength found

less as benchmarked with

Excavator

• Process controls at sub-suppliers

end (Adpro, Ennar, Shriraj, Surya)

• Pre-plating issues (time delay after

grinding)

• Simulation results (SST

Testing ) & plating thickness

variation - indicate poor

process controls at Platters

Localised roundness error

41

Improvement

Before

Solution: Piston rod surface finish (Rt) improvement

After

42

Brain Storming session

Possible Solutions Solution Validation Final solution

22

5.01 Data driven Project flow: Improvement

Brain Storming session

In-house lab test : shown good results with modified sealing arrangement

JCB Validation : 2 machines successfully completed 3000 hours with negligible seal wear out .

Current Sealing Modified sealing

Bench marking:


Solutions – Rod Seal modification as per benchmarking 43

With Heavy duty application machine

Excavators

Improvement

Solution: Cleanliness improvement from NAS 9/10 to NAS 6

End of line testing Return line filtration 30/20/10 No offline filtration

End of line testing Return line filtration 3/5/10 Offline electrostatic filter on 24 hours

Before After

On line Particle counter with interlock

Process FMEA

44


23

Improvement

Solution: Tube burnishing process sequence modified

Process FMEA

After

Tube Port Welding

Burnishing

Washing

Before

Burnishing

Tube Port Welding

Washing

45


Summary Improvement

Solution: Tube burnishing process sequence modified

Failure Modes Possible Solution Final Solution

• Piston rod surface finish (Rt values)

• Pressure spikes

• Oil Cleanliness values

• Burnishing process before port welding (causing

roundness error)

• Integrated in-house high speed center

less grinding

• Rod seal modification to accommodate

pressure spikes & duty cycles.

• Oil line particle counter with interlocks,

with EOD filtration improvement.

• Burnishing process modified

• Piston seal O ring hardness (70 shore A)

• Less tensile Strength of Seal – under pressure

spike condition

• O Ring hardness & Tensile strength

modification in line with JCB Excavator

seals to avoid cavitation issues

• Process controls at sub-suppliers end (Adpro,

Ennar, Shriraj, Surya)

• Pre-plating issues (time delay after grinding)

• Integrated state of art piston rod

manufacturing unit from raw material

inputs to chrome plating rods, using no

men interface in line.

46

24

5.02 Solution Validation

No issue observed during validation

JCB Accelerated validation simulating worst field conditions

Accelerated Rig validations with pressure spikes & high duty cycles, simulating field conditions

47

5.03 Solution Justification

Solution approved from stake holders based on justifications.

Before

After

Timely delivery & transit damages improved due to reduction of multiple chrome platters & grinding

sub- suppliers.

Improvement is inline to JCB Brand Positioning & One Global Quality Strategy.

Foot prints upgrade supports JCB’s volume growth in domestic & exports market.

48

Reliability Box plot of Seal life: Before & After

Significant improvement in Cylinder seal life

Piston rod Chrome plating

Significant improvement SST life (35 %)

25

5.03 Solution Justification

Sign off & Approval

Signoff & approval from Stake Holders Release of Engineering Change Production approval & Cut in

49

5.04 Results

50

50 % 53 %

22 % 20 %

59 % 50 %

Fault free %

Leak per machine

Fault per machine

Target: 50% Achieved: 53%



26

5.04 Results

Successfully achieved the target of “ One Global Quality”

Significant improvement on comparative graph

51

Area Tangible Benefits

Target Actual

Reliability (1 year warranty)

+ 40% + 43 %

Part Inventory - 30% - 27 %

MTTF + 20% 24 %

Reduction in warranty cost

- 25 % - 23 %

Intangible Benefits

Customer Delight & prosperity

Skill Development of team

Sustain Market leadership

Reduced Cost of Ownership

* Other hydraulic parts FPM improvement with similar problem solving approach

5.05 Maintaining the gains : Control

Launched T3 War room for steadfast measurements & analysis

Re-PPAP Activity Monthly Audits

Ongoing Supplier Internal Performance Dashboard : Weekly Ongoing Capability Studies for CTQ

52

27

Regular sub-system review & monitoring

Command Center : Escalation & Monitoring

Hydraulic Subsystem: Journey Continued…

Online MIS & Touch Points on Lotus Notes

Subsystem Reliability added in Quality Roadmap

5.05 Maintaining the gains : Control

53

5.06 Project Communication

Communication to Dealer Engineer Sub-System Board

Top Management communication in QBR

Management Quality Report

54

28

Achievements……….

Maintained Global Market Leadership – Export to 90+ countries

One Global Quality – Best in Group

Continuous Improvement

“Jamais content – that’s very

much me. I am never

content” Joseph Cyril

Bamford

“We have created this industry’s finest product support network

& continue to improve…” Lord Bamford, Chairman, JCB Group

“Sense of Urgency” Joseph Cyril Bamford

29

We Care, That’s Why We Are Every Where

Thank You

57

Backhoe Hydraulics Reliability Improvement - ASQ · 2019. 9. 23. · 1 Backhoe Hydraulics Reliability Improvement ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award 1 Founded in 1945 in Uttoxeter

Documents