Analysis and Defect Improvement Using FTA, FMEA, and MLR Through DMAIC Phase: Case Study in Mixing Process Tire Manufacturing Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In line with the increasingly fierce industry competition, all companies strive to make continuous improvements to increase added value and reduce waste which will impact the company's ability to maintain its existence in the future. One of the problems found in the tire manufacturing industry is the quality problem of the occurrence of defects in the mixing process which is dominated by the viscosity out standard on the compound steel breaker. In this study, analysis and improvement of the defect problem were carried out using Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA), and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) to test the correlation between the root causes found to the main problem. Based on the results of the analysis found thirteen root causes where the factor of variation in material viscosity and the suitability of determining the design process has the largest Risk Priority Number (RPN) value and has a strong correlation to defects that occur based on hypothesis testing. Furthermore, improvements are made using the DMAIC method on all factors that affect the occurrence of defects. As the result, the improvement can be effective in reducing the defect to 34.5% and achieve the expected target.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".