Tool replacement policy for one-sided processes with low fraction defective

W.l. Pearn*, Y. C. Hsu, J. J. Horng Shiau

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations


In most manufacturing industries, tool replacement policy is essential for minimizing the fraction defective and the manufacturing cost. Tool wear is caused by the action of sliding chips in the shear zone, and the friction generated between the tool flank and workpiece. This wear, apparently, is a dominant and irremovable component of variability in many machining processes, which is a systematic assignable cause. As the tool wear occurs in the machining processes, the fraction of defectives would gradually become significant. When the fraction defective reaches a certain level, the tool must be replaced. Therefore, detecting suitable time for tool replacement operation becomes essential. In this paper, we present an analytical approach for unilateral processes based on the one-sided process capability index C(PU) (or C(PL)) to find the appropriate time for tool replacement. Accurate process capability must be calculated, particularly, when the data contains assignable cause variation. By calculating the index C(PU) (or C(PL)) in a dynamical environment, we propose estimators of C(PU) (or C(PL)) and obtain exact form of the sampling distribution in the presence of systematic assignable cause. The proposed procedure is then applied to a real manufacturing process involving tool wear problem, to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approach.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1075-1083
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of the Operational Research Society
Issue number8
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2007


  • Critical value
  • Process capability index
  • Production
  • Systematic assignable cause
  • Tool replacement
  • Tool wear

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Tool replacement policy for one-sided processes with low fraction defective'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this