QFR No - 8000831177
Defect Details
| NC No. | 8000831177 |
| NC Date | 01/06/2023 |
| NC Submission Date | |
| Part No. | B2RU00402O |
| Part Name | PISTON SEAL DIA. 28 MM (MODIFIED) |
| Supplier Name & Code | 100713-FUKOKU INDIA PVT.LTD. |
| ETL Plant | 1120-ETL K-226/2 Disc Brakes |
| Defect Details | FITTMENT NOT OK.-CRACK OBSERVED IN ID |
1. Problem Description
| Defect Description | Crack observed in seal |
| Detection Stage | Inprocess |
| Problem Severity | Function |
| NG Quantity | 5 |
| Is Defect Repeatative? | No |
| Defect Sketch / Photo |
Supplier Communication Details
| Quality Head Email ID | d_dumbre@fukoku.co.in |
| Plant Head/CEO Email ID | s_tomii@fukoku-rubber.co.jp |
| MD Email ID | p_joshi@fukoku.co.in |
2. Stock Details & action taken for NG parts
| Location | ETL End | Warehouse | Transit | Supplier FG | Supplier WIP | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Qty |
5000
|
5000
|
0
|
1000
|
0
|
11000
|
| Check Qty |
5000
|
5000
|
0
|
1000
|
0
|
11000
|
| NG Qty |
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
| Scrap | 5 |
| Rework | 0 |
| Under Deviation | 0 |
| Containment Action |
|---|
| Visual by squeezing the ID of Piston Seal |
3. Process Flow
| Process Flow Description |
|---|
| Receipt of Tube --> Inspection of Tubes --> Storage of Tubes --> Grinding of Tubes --> Cutting of Tubes --> Washing --> Inspection - Quality --> Appearance Inspection --> Packaging & Dispatched |
4. Process Details
| Process / Operation | Cutting |
| Outsource | No |
| Machine / Cell | Cutting Machine |
| Machine / Cell No. | Line 01 |
5. Problem Analysis
| Type | Possible Cause | Fact Verification | Jud |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tool | No Possible causes as No trouble found from FIPL | No trouble found from FIPL | O |
6. Inspection Method Analysis (Current)
| Inspection Method | Other |
| Other Inspection Method | Visual |
| Check Point at Final Inspection | Yes |
| Checking Freq. | 100% |
| Sampling | No |
| Sample Size | Each Part |
7. Root Cause Analysis (Occurance)
| Why 1 | After verification of our different process we observed that, in our past we don’t have such past trouble history for this type of defect |
| Why 2 | After verification of our different process we observed that, in our past we don’t have such past trouble history for this type of defect |
| Why 3 | |
| Why 4 | |
| Why 5 | |
| Root Cause (Occurance) | After verification of our different process we observed that, in our past we don’t have such past trouble history for this type of defect |
Root Cause Analysis (Outflow)
| Why 1 | There is no any possibility of ID corner cut in our any process |
| Why 2 | There is no any possibility of ID corner cut in our any process |
| Why 3 | |
| Why 4 | |
| Why 5 | |
| Root Cause (Outflow) | There is no any possibility of ID corner cut in our any process |
8. Countermeasure ( Occurrence , Outflow & System side Actions )
| Type | Countermeasure Details | Responsibility | Target Date | Actual Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occurance | After verification of our different process we observed that, in our past we don’t have such past trouble history for this type of defect. There is no any possibility of ID corner cut in our any process. (Pt. 1 & 2) We observed there is running cut mark (one is deep and other is small at Pt.3) on the side wall of piston seal which can not be occurred in our process as the slicing is done at cutting process where the marked area doesn’t come in to the picture of process. While inspecting the Cut area we feel that the cuts are generated by sharp external object. By the measurement result on said part , all the fit / Function parameters are within Spec., so there could be some other reasons for the leakage, which is beyond our scope of investigation. So, we feel that such defect could have generated while removing the seal from Seal Groove as it is difficult to remove by fingers and so ,is not a cause of assy. leakage. | FIPL | 16/06/2023 | Completed | |
| Outflow | After verification of our different process we observed that, in our past we don’t have such past trouble history for this type of defect. There is no any possibility of ID corner cut in our any process. (Pt. 1 & 2) We observed there is running cut mark (one is deep and other is small at Pt.3) on the side wall of piston seal which can not be occurred in our process as the slicing is done at cutting process where the marked area doesn’t come in to the picture of process. While inspecting the Cut area we feel that the cuts are generated by sharp external object. By the measurement result on said part , all the fit / Function parameters are within Spec., so there could be some other reasons for the leakage, which is beyond our scope of investigation. So, we feel that such defect could have generated while removing the seal from Seal Groove as it is difficult to remove by fingers and so ,is not a cause of assy. leakage. | FIPL | 16/06/2023 | Completed |
9. Inspection Method After Customer Complaint
| Change In Inspection System | No |
| Change Details | No Change |
| Inspection Method | Other |
| Other Inspection Method | Visual |
| Check Point at Final Inspection | No |
| Checking Freq. | 100% |
| Sampling | No |
| Sample Size | Each Part |
10. Evidance of Countermeasure
| Occurance (Before) |
Action Closure 461_Occurance_Before.ppt |
| Occurance (After) |
Action Closure 461_Occurance_After.pdf |
| Outflow (Before) |
Action Closure 461_Outflow_Before.pdf |
| Outflow (After) |
Action Closure 461_Outflow_After.pdf |
11. Horizontal Deployment
| Horizontal Deployment Required | No |
| Applicable Machine / Model / Plant | Line 02 |
12. Document Review
| Documents | |
| Specify Other Document | No |
13. Effectiveness Of Action
| Reviewed Quantity | 1000 |
| Reason for submission | No crack found |