8D CONCERN & COUNTERMEASURE REPORT SUMMARY Supplier Name & Code Pierburg S.A. Part Name LHS EGR Valve M4900438 (7.01881.04.0) Part No. 1. Concern Details Description (include photograph or sketch): Completed by Romero Position Plant Quality Date 10/10/2011 Approved by Nuño Position Quality Manager Date 10/10/2011 Team members: Munarriz SQA Status: 01/12/2011 ICP-PT126/11 n/a 06/10/2011 Ford LionLHS 1 n/a Y N
Issue: BW informed in 06/10/2011 about a valve with electric fail in Ford. Ford notified in 27/10/2011, EGR 'C' sensor circuit failure. The valve passed cold test at DEP, then failed on rolling road in a built vehicle at Landrover.
Report No. Rank Incident Date & Time Model Quantity Affected Affected Lot No's. Recurrence
2. Similar Part Consideration Can the concern appear onother parts? Yes Consider: - Other models - Generic parts - Other colours - Opposite hand - Front / Rear - Other (please state):
No x x x x x x Yes No x x x x
Comment / Result
3. Initial Analysis Where should the non-conforming parts have been detected? - During process / manufacture? - After manufacture (e.g. Final Inspection) - Prior to dispatch - Other (please state):
Reason for non-detection4. Temporary Countermeasures - Immediate Action What actions have been taken to prevent the delivery of reject parts to customer plants? Actions Taken Consider: n/a - Work in progress - Stores stock n/a - Warehouse stock n/a - Service parts n/a - Other (please state): n/a Temporary Countermeasure Details: In serial production all the EGR valves are 100% functionally tested, following drawingdefined checks. Calibration and verification station of the line acts as a poka-yoke with the evidence of mechanical dot on the part.
Qty. OK Qty. NG
Delivery Date for 1st OK parts n/a after temporary countermeasure Delivery Ref. for 1st OK parts n/a after temporary countermeasure How are OK parts identified?
Automatic conformity dot in the aluminum housing
5. Final Analysis 5 WHYAnalysis to identify root cause: Consider: Man, Material, Machine, Method, Who, Where When Why, How, Process settings, Rework, Maintenance etc. Attach extra detail sheets where necessary Claim notification: 06/10/2011 Part reception: 10/10/2011 Analysis report date: 10/10/2011 Pierburg analysis, Part assembled in Pierburg Abadiano's Line 3. Manufacturing date 11T174 (23-06-2011). Part has the automaticconformity dot applied by the line, so it is confirmed to have been programmed. The part was ok in Ford EOL "Cold test" and then failed in vehicle test. Connector shell (sensor) and the cover from NOK part were checked with components from a good part and the conclusion is that there is no voltage feedback from the sensor when the magnet field changes, V out of the sensor stays at 0,0030V, whichmeans no response of the Hall sensor. As the result of defective part analysis, the PCB was sent to subsupplier in 10/10/2011for further analysis at EEPROM level. Please see additional information in the attached analysis report "BW 179-11(ICP126-11)_fallo electrico_Analysis report.pdf"
Tier-3 analysis, Tested quantity: 1 complained part Tested parameters: 1 - Current input of IC at 5 V,operating voltage reference: 7,5 +/- 2,5 mA actual result: 8,2 mA 2 - Output voltage, reference: 400 +/- 100 mV (in the no programmed condition) actual result: 0,006 V The output does not change with the turn of the magnet. 3 - Capacitances, reference: 100 +/- 10 nF actual results: C1: 98,1 nF C2: 95,6 nF C3: 97,6 nF 4 - Readability, It is not possible to read the EEPROM. Part sent to Tier-4 for furtheranalysis in 14/10/2011. Part received in 25/10/2011, first feedback, Review of lot history at Melexis side: The production data for the concerned lot has been reviewed without showing any abnormalities compared to other lots in production. Yield for lot M25374 is in line with standard yield at production for this project. No deviation found with respect to abnormal bin code distribution. Analysis...
Ler documento completo
Por favor, assinar para o acesso.