The Apprentice_Abhrajit Sett_KJ SIMSR

8/3/2019 The Apprentice_Abhrajit Sett_KJ SIMSR

1/24

GOODYEARBallabgarh

REDUCTION OF WASTE FROM EXTRUSION IN TIREMANUFACTURING PROCESS

Summer Project Presentation

At

GOODYEAR INDIA LIMITED,BALLABHGARH

By

Abhrajit Sett

[email protected]

K J Somaiya Institute of Management Studies and ResearchMumbai


2/24

#1North America

#1Latin America

#1

EasternEurope, MiddleEast, & Africa

Asia one of the fastestgrowing markets. Goodyear

holds a # 2 pos ition in market

#2

RegionalRank

A Global Company

Asia


3/24

Plant Location : 28 km South of Delhi in Haryanastate on National Highway No.2.

Major Industries in Area : Escorts, Maruti (Gurgaon), JCB, Yamaha,

Honda (Greater Noida)

Area : 67 acre with 654,000 sq.ft of floor space

Manufacturing : Automotive tires started in 1961,presently producing 4100 Tires per day.

Products : Farm, Truck, LCV tires.

Goodyear Ballabhgarh


4/24

Natural Rubber

Banbury - Mixer

Extrusion

Calendering

Tire Building

Curing

InspectionDispatch

OEMRetail

Tire Building Process


5/24

Plant Layout


6/24

Project Definition

Data collection

Root Cause Analysis Actions suggested based on identified root

causes

Cost Benefit Analysis Key Learnings

Project Approach


7/24

DEFINITION

The main objective of doing the project is to reduce the waste from extruder machinewhich produces tire treads so as to reduce scrap/rework costs and improve theproductivity of the plant.

SCOPE

The scope of the project includes study of extrusion waste that occurs in different

processes during tire making. Reduction of waste in other processes(particularly curing)was beyond the scope.

The scope is limited till the recommendation phase. The actual implementations of therecommendations are under the purview of the organization.

ASSUMPTION

The waste reduction was limited to material waste because the extrusion process bearsslack.

The bottleneck lies at the curing process so extrusion doesnt work at full capacity.

The defect data collected was only limited to 7 days in Shift A. The defects in other shiftsare expected to be of same pattern.

Project Objective


8/24

Compoundstorage area

Capbreakd

ownmill

Basebreakd

ownmill

Capfeedmill

Basefeedmill

EXTRUDER

Takeaway

conveyor

Gravityrollers

Inclinedconvey

or

CoolingConvey

or

DecliningConveyo

r

Skiver

Weighing

Conveyor

ScrapMarker

CementStation

Extrusion Process


9/24

51.3%

22.5%

16%

7.8%

54, 3%

Types of defects in treads

LOW WEIGHT

HIGH WEIGHT

LUMPS

TORNEDGE

OTHERS

Treads produced-12207Treads rejected-1674

Defect Data


10/24

Defect Data (sample for 24.5.2011)


11/24

Pareto Analysis

FINDINGS

More than 50% of the

rejections are caused to

low weight. High weight

and lumps add up to

almost 90% of therejections. In our analysis

lump rejection is being

considered because lump

rejections are completely

controllable up to 40%

whereas weight rejections

can be only be removed

up to 20% or below.


12/24

Low weight

MAN MATERIAL

MACHINE METHOD

Feed break (M) Low Viscosity (M)

Die setting not proper Low specific gravity (M)

Low weight Running weight not properly set

Line synchronization not proper Waiting for compound

Mechanical/Electrical Operating skillsstoppage (M)

Root Cause Analysis for Low Weight rejects

(M) Major reasons


13/24

Why-Why Analysis for Low weight rejects

Why #6

Why #5

Why #4

Why #3

Why #2

Why #1 Lowweight

Lowviscosity

Compound

milled for along time atB.D. mill.

Mill operatordid not keeptrack of time

Operatornegligence

Temperature

at extruderheadincreased

No watercirculation at

extruderhead

Water valveclosed

Non-conformanc

e ofprocedure

Lowspecificgravity

Compoundin

g not OKfromBanbury

Chemicalsnot mixed in

properquantity

Scaling error

in autoloading

Calibrationnot done.

Lack of audit

Electricalstoppage

s

Feedbreak

Compound

stuck at millguard of feedmill

Materialaccumulated

at top ofmillguard

Operator filed

to noticeaccumulation

No line ofsight less

visibility

Compoundslipped frombite rollers

Adequatedistance from

bite rollersnot kept

Bite-rollers

notmaintained

Audit notperformed

Root Causes


14/24

High weight

MAN MATERIAL

MACHINE METHOD

Operating skills High viscosity variation (M)(Die setting)

Line synchronization Improper breakdown ofnot proper compound at B.D. Mill (M)

Wrong die tuning

Root Cause Analysis for High Weight rejects

(M) Major reasons


15/24

Why-Why Analysis for High weight rejects

Why #6

Why #5

Why #4

Why #3

Why #2

Why #1 Highweight

Improperbreakdown

of compound

Compoundmilled for alesser time

Compoundurgently

needed atfeed mill

Feed millrunning shortof compoundat extruder.

Shortage ofmaterial.Planningimproper.

Highviscosity

Compound

fromBanbury was

hard

Impropermixing atBanbury

Mixing cyclenot followedby operator

SOP not inplace


16/24

Lumps

MAN MATERIAL

MACHINE METHOD

Absenteeism Lumpy Compound (M)

Negligence (M) Viscosity variation (M)

Temp/TCU Waiting for compound

Line stoppage (M) Operating skills

Root Cause Analysis for Lump rejects

(M) Major reasons


17/24

Why-Why Analysis for Lump rejects

Why #6

Why #5

Why #4

Why #3

Why #2

Why #1 Lumps

Lumpycompound

Lumpytreads mixedat Banbury

Lumps notremovedduring

segregation

Improperdisposal oflumpy scrap

Improperdisposal of

lumpy treads

Lumpytreads notrecorded

Compoundgot lumpy infeed mill

Compoundprocessedfor a long

time

Orbitconveyor notused in cap

side

Operator nottrained in orbit

conveyorusage

Lumps

formed atBanbury

mixer

Mill tailingswaste added

to mixer

Mill tailingsformed frommill guides

Housekeepingat mill guides

not done

Viscosityvariation

LineStoppage

Safety fromthe coolingtank

Tread slippedfrom cooling

tank todancing roller

Less visibilityfor operator to

see tread

Process notstandardized


18/24

Actions / Opportunities

Ensure Ok compound loaded on B.D. mill free from lumps

Root Cause - Operator negligence

Censor installed at declining conveyor so that operator loads treadto roller on time

Root Cause Less visibility for operator

Automated entry of lumpy treads count by operator at cementingstation through push button

Root Cause Lumpy treads not recorded

Temp monitoring device at mill of Banbury to avoid excess heatingof compound

Root Cause Lack of visibility in temp control


19/24


Implementation of Orbit conveyor at the cap & the base feed mills andtrain operator its function and usage.

Root Cause Lumps formed due to overheating as operator is not trained on its usage

Segregate lumps from lumpy treads before sending back to Banburymixer

Root Cause Improper disposal of lumpy treads

Scheduling of preventive maintenance at conveyor belt, skiver, motorto prevent untimely breakdown during running of batch

Root Cause Non conformance to procedure(maintenance)

Proper scheduling at Banbury to ensure there is enough compound. Ifnot operator should inform supervisor at the starting of batch

Root Cause Shortage of material at B.D. mill


20/24


Censor installed at cap feed mill to indicate accumulation ofmaterial at cap feed mill guard

Root Cause Less visibility for mill man

TCU leakages should be monitored frequently by the shift

supervisor. Root Cause Non-conformance to audits

Operator counseling to make them aware and responsible towardsthe job they are doing & adhere to SOPs/specifications.

Root Cause Standard procedures not followed

Proper distance between the bite rollers should be maintained andits axis straightened so that rollers work properly.

Root Cause Safety and performance audit not conducted by plant


21/24

Cost Benefit Analysis

Total no of treads rejected during 7 shifts =

1658 * 18.6 * 3/7 * 30 = 396498.85 KG

(No of rejects * Avg wt * No of shifts * No of days)

Total cost involved for treating one KG of tread

= Cost of Banbury + Cost of extruder

= 1.30+0.39=1.69 Rs/kg

Total cost of re-work per month: =396498.85 * 1.69 = Rs. 670, 083.06

Cost of rejection in the previous state


22/24

Cost Benefit Analysis

Treads rejected/day (After changes) =369.34 Nos

Treads rejected/month= 11080.4 Nos

Total loss of tread in terms of weight for 1 month

= 1080.4*18.60 (wt of 1 tread)=206,095.44 KG

New cost involved for rework oftread/month=206,095.44*1.69= Rs. 348,301

Therefore this project has potential tosave = Rs.670,083.06 348,301

= 321,781.86 Rs/Month.

The rejection achieved after implementing some of the changes was from 13.71 to 7.06 %


23/24

Key Learnings

Learned in detail about the steps/processes involved in tire manufacturingparticularly producing treads in 10*10 extruder machine.

Learned about the quality parameters which are responsible for the rejectionof tire treads.

Learned about the allocation of work, manpower, job scheduling & also

learned that how manpower is managed & handled on the shop floor. Undertook step-by-step approach using TQM tools to address the problem.

Practically saw the types of manufacturing waste being generated on theshop floor & how it impacts the productivity of the plant.

Learned about the interdependencies between various processes for this

project & how the impact of one process affects the output of anotherprocess.


24/24

Thank you

The Apprentice_Abhrajit Sett_KJ SIMSR

Documents

Transcript of The Apprentice_Abhrajit Sett_KJ SIMSR