QFR No - 8000895936
Defect Details
| NC No. | 8000895936 |
| NC Date | 17/10/2024 |
| NC Submission Date | |
| Part No. | 550PJ00102 |
| Part Name | VALVE SEAT |
| Supplier Name & Code | 100990-JAIRAJ ANCILLARIES PVT LTD |
| ETL Plant | 1117-ETL K-228/9 Suspension |
| Defect Details | NOT AS PER SPECIFICATION-HOLE |
1. Problem Description
| Defect Description | Hole observed in part surface |
| Detection Stage | Inprocess |
| Problem Severity | Function |
| NG Quantity | 42 |
| Is Defect Repeatative? | No |
| Defect Sketch / Photo |
Supplier Communication Details
| Quality Head Email ID | planthead.aurangabad@jairajgroup.com |
| Plant Head/CEO Email ID | vp@jairajgroup.com |
| MD Email ID | rajiv@jairajgroup.com |
2. Stock Details & action taken for NG parts
| Location | ETL End | Warehouse | Transit | Supplier FG | Supplier WIP | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Qty |
5000
|
0
|
0
|
1000
|
0
|
6000
|
| Check Qty |
5000
|
0
|
0
|
1000
|
0
|
6000
|
| NG Qty |
42
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
47
|
| Scrap | 47 |
| Rework | 0 |
| Under Deviation | 0 |
| Containment Action |
|---|
| All available stock at ETL checked 100% and found 47 no. defective parts out of 5000 no. checked. Also checked 100% FG stock inhouse & found 5 parts defective. |
3. Process Flow
| Process Flow Description |
|---|
| Injection Moulding |
4. Process Details
| Process / Operation | Injection Moulding |
| Outsource | No |
| Machine / Cell | Injection Moulding |
| Machine / Cell No. | IMM-01 |
5. Problem Analysis
| Type | Possible Cause | Fact Verification | Jud |
|---|---|---|---|
| Machine | Clamping pressure low | Verified as per CP & OCS found ok, as per standard specification | O |
| Machine | OCS & Control plan not followed by machine operator | Verified as per CP & OCS found ok, as per standard specification | O |
| Method | Sampling Inspection | Verified & found that defects are checked on sampling basis | X |
| Man | Man power does not aware about this defect | Verified that operator, In process inspector & final inspector are aware of this defect | O |
| Tool | Core cavity butting not adequate | Checked with blue matching and found ok | O |
| Tool | Ejector pin butting in cavity after mould clamping | Verified and found ejector pin head bend and butt in cavity | X |
6. Inspection Method Analysis (Current)
| Inspection Method | Other |
| Other Inspection Method | Sampling |
| Check Point at Final Inspection | Yes |
| Checking Freq. | Sampling |
| Sampling | No |
| Sample Size | 5 |
7. Root Cause Analysis (Occurance)
| Why 1 | Hole on part due to Ejector pin butt in cavity |
| Why 2 | Due to Ejector pin head broken |
| Why 3 | Due to Ejector pin came out from Ejector assembly |
| Why 4 | Due to Round shape Head the Head loose due to continuous to & fro motion. |
| Why 5 | Round shape head loose & came out from locking plate. |
| Root Cause (Occurance) | Due to Round shape Head , it came out from locking plate & loosened resulting in butting with cavity.. |
Root Cause Analysis (Outflow)
| Why 1 | Hole on part not captured during final Inspection. |
| Why 2 | Part checked on Sampling basis |
| Why 3 | Checking method inadequate for hole defect. |
| Why 4 | |
| Why 5 | |
| Root Cause (Outflow) | Checking method inadequate for hole defect. |
8. Countermeasure ( Occurrence , Outflow & System side Actions )
| Type | Countermeasure Details | Responsibility | Target Date | Actual Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occurance | Ejector Pin Head changed from Round shape to D shape | Ganesh Mhaske | 18/10/2024 | 18/10/2024 | Completed |
| Occurance | Given training to operator to check the part in process for Hole by visual inspection and given instruction for not to run the production if he found any out of tolerance . | Mr Sandip Rode | 18/10/2024 | 18/10/2024 | Completed |
| Outflow | Inspection standard displayed on machine as well as firewall inspection stations | Sandip Rode | 19/10/2024 | 19/10/2024 | Completed |
| Outflow | Given on job training to Inspector to check the parts 100% for visual inspection for hole and aesthetic defects and Given instruction not to pass . | Sandip Rode | 19/10/2024 | 19/10/2024 | Completed |
9. Inspection Method After Customer Complaint
| Change In Inspection System | Yes |
| Change Details | 100% Inspection at firewall through Visual Inspection. |
| Inspection Method | Other |
| Other Inspection Method | 100% Inspection |
| Check Point at Final Inspection | Yes |
| Checking Freq. | 100% |
| Sampling | No |
| Sample Size | 100% |
10. Evidance of Countermeasure
| Occurance (Before) |
Before -Earlier Ejector Pin head as Round shape resulting in loosening from locking plate with to & from motion . 1154_Occurance_Before.jpg |
| Occurance (After) |
After - Ejector Pin Head changed from Round Shape to D Shape. 1154_Occurance_After.jpg |
| Outflow (Before) |
Inspection is on Sampling basis. 1154_Outflow_Before.pdf |
| Outflow (After) |
Inspection is 100 % and Inspection standard, PFMEA , CP updated 1154_Outflow_After.xlsx |
11. Horizontal Deployment
| Horizontal Deployment Required | No |
| Applicable Machine / Model / Plant | NIL |
12. Document Review
| Documents | ControlPlan, PFMEA, InspCheckSheet |
| Specify Other Document | NIL |
13. Effectiveness Of Action
| Reviewed Quantity | 50 |
| Reason for submission | 5. Problem Analysis - Judgment not ok - Provide `O` for OK judgment and `X` for NG 7. Root Cause Analysis (Occurrence) - Due to Round shape Head the Head loose - Why loose? 8. Countermeasure ( Occurrence , Outflow & System side Actions ) Ejector Pin Head changed from Round shape to D shape - Validation missing? |