CTG SIX SIGMA Final.pdf - Chemtool
CTG SIX SIGMA Final.pdf - Chemtool
CTG SIX SIGMA Final.pdf - Chemtool
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
PURPOSE<br />
• The purpose of this presentation is to<br />
demonstrate the Six Sigma Techniques<br />
and capabilities of the <strong>Chemtool</strong>, Inc.<br />
Container Technology Group (<strong>CTG</strong>).<br />
• The presentation follows a typical<br />
aluminum can plant cupper lube trial. The<br />
trial material in this case is NuSol 177-M.<br />
• The tear-off rate during the trial improved<br />
from 0.147/10,000 to 0.128/10,000, a<br />
12.5% improvement.
Was the Tear-off Rate Improvement<br />
Statistically Significant?<br />
• Tear-off rate for seven (7) days<br />
preceding the trial – 0.147/10,000.<br />
• Tear-off rate for seven (7) day trial<br />
period – 0.128/10,000.<br />
Test and CI for Two Proportions (C1A vs. 177M)<br />
Sample X N Sample p<br />
C1A 758 52348754 0.0000147<br />
177M 648 50466446 0.0000128<br />
Difference = p (1) - p (2)<br />
Estimate for difference: 1.639595E-06<br />
95% lower bound for difference: 4.409649E-07<br />
Test for difference = 0 (vs > 0): Z = 2.25<br />
P-Value = 0.012<br />
Yes! The<br />
Improvement is<br />
Statistically<br />
Significant!
Plant Concerns with NuSol 177M<br />
• The following issues typically might be<br />
raised as negatives to NuSol use:<br />
• pH instability<br />
• Tramp oil instability (concentration variation)<br />
• Inconsistent cup lube weights<br />
• Variation in top wall concentricity<br />
These issues are addressed with “data driven”<br />
answers on the following pages.
DID NUSOL 177M IMPROVE COOLANT<br />
pH STABILITY AND CAPABILITY?<br />
• NuSol 177M makes up<br />
at a pH of ~8.6.<br />
• The coolant pH<br />
increased to ~ 9.0<br />
• Yes!<br />
Coolant pH<br />
was “more stable and<br />
capable” with NuSol<br />
177M vs. competitive<br />
material (C pk 0.80 vs.<br />
0.44)
% TRAMP OIL IN THE COOLANT<br />
CHANGED DURING THE TRIAL<br />
• The chart shows a<br />
decease in % tramp oil.<br />
• Simultaneously the %<br />
177M increased.<br />
• The total oil remained<br />
constant until a plant<br />
addition.<br />
• Anecdotally, the same<br />
phenomena occurs with<br />
the competition material<br />
(increased % cupper =<br />
decreased % tramp).
DID NUSOL 177M DESTABILIZE<br />
THE % TRAMP OIL?<br />
• <strong>Chemtool</strong> Crystal Lake<br />
lab analysis showed the<br />
% of gear oil and cupper<br />
lube were constant.<br />
• The in-use test method<br />
gave inaccurate results.<br />
• NO! % Tramp oil<br />
was not destabilized by<br />
NuSol 177M!<br />
• A more accurate test<br />
method was developed &<br />
rolled out to the<br />
customer.<br />
NuSol 177-M<br />
1.0<br />
0.5<br />
0.0<br />
% NuSol 177-M in Oil Split (BRIX)<br />
NuSol 177-M = 5.26558 - 0.0652284 Brix<br />
S = 0.0120906 R-Sq = 99.9 % R-Sq(adj) = 99.9 %<br />
65 70 75 80<br />
Brix
DID NUSOL 177M IMPACT CUP<br />
LUBE WEIGHT CONSISTENCY?<br />
Cupper One Comparison<br />
Lube<br />
177M<br />
X<br />
Mean<br />
15.631<br />
13.714<br />
S.D.<br />
3.488<br />
4.261<br />
Min.<br />
6<br />
-12<br />
Cupper Two Comparison<br />
Lube<br />
177M<br />
X<br />
Mean<br />
16.167<br />
15<br />
S.D.<br />
2.924<br />
3.383<br />
Min.<br />
8<br />
8<br />
Max.<br />
26<br />
20<br />
Max.<br />
27<br />
27<br />
Range<br />
20<br />
32<br />
Range<br />
19<br />
19<br />
• No! Cup Lube<br />
weights were MORE<br />
consistent during the<br />
trial (lower S.D.), but<br />
the competitor<br />
inconsistency was<br />
likelydue to mechanical<br />
issues identified bt<br />
<strong>Chemtool</strong>.<br />
• Defective solenoids on<br />
both application units.<br />
(Replaced).<br />
• Lube supply not<br />
touching bottom of coil<br />
on cupper one<br />
(Repaired).
WHAT IMPACT TOP WALL CONCENTRICITY<br />
DID NUSOL 177M HAVE?<br />
CONCENTRICITY DATA SUMMARY<br />
Variable<br />
Mean<br />
TrMean<br />
StDev<br />
Minimum<br />
Maximum<br />
Range<br />
Other<br />
0.006046<br />
0.006045<br />
0.000111<br />
0.0056<br />
0.00646<br />
0.00086<br />
177M<br />
0.006053<br />
0.006053<br />
0.000109<br />
0.00567<br />
0.00644<br />
0.00077<br />
None! The<br />
concentricity results are<br />
“Statistically Similar.”
CUP MAT CONVEYOR ISSUES<br />
• DATA IMPUT<br />
• Unusually, the cupper conveyor system with more<br />
mechanical issues had fewer tear-offs<br />
• Six Sigma correlation made with “line stops” and<br />
tear-off rates (p-value)<br />
• <strong>SIX</strong> <strong>SIGMA</strong> CORRELATION INVESTGATION<br />
• CUP conveyor run on line stops<br />
• Cups are rubbed “dry”<br />
• Cups are dumped after one (1) hour stops<br />
• Explanation of why the cupper with less line stops<br />
has lower tear-off rates (lube loss)<br />
• PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION<br />
• Cup conveyor “auto-stop” with line back-up (No lube<br />
loss)
CONCLUSIONS<br />
• ADDITIONAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED<br />
• Metal trial<br />
• Cup Conveyor<br />
• Cup lube application failure<br />
• <strong>SIX</strong> <strong>SIGMA</strong> DATA ANSWERS<br />
• Improved or equal performance in cup lube<br />
weights, coolant pH, % coolant tramp oil,<br />
and top wall concentricity!<br />
• Statistically Significant 12.5%<br />
IMPROVEMENT in Tear-off rate in spite<br />
of mechanical and metal issues!
QUOTATIONS<br />
• “The goal is to transform data<br />
into information, and information<br />
into insight.” Carly Fiona<br />
• “As Luce reminded me, he said,<br />
without data, , without facts, the<br />
discussion….is just another<br />
opinion.”<br />
• “When you cannot measure,<br />
when you cannot express in<br />
numbers, your knowledge is of a<br />
meager and unsatisfactory kind:<br />
(Lord Kelvin)