The Elsmar Cove Forum and Site Map The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page

Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard > QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard


The Elsmar Cove Forum SideBar!
Monitor the Forum
Monitor New Forum Posts
New Threads Feeds
RSS FeedRSS Feed
Sponsor Link










$ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


Howard's International Quality Services

Atul's Symphony Technologies

Dave Scott's Scott Quality Solutions

Praxiom Research Group


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest Portal

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

ASQ - American Society for Quality


All the Important Standards and Related Web Sites in the World
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 29th June 1998, 03:48 PM
David McGan David McGan is offline
Involved in Discussions

Registration Date: Jul 2003
Location: Corydon, KY, USA
 
Posts: 45
Thanks Given to Others: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 26
Karma: 10
David McGan has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Send a message via Yahoo to David McGan
Default Chrysler's Annual Layout Requirements

We have come up against a "Catch-22" situation that I frankly am at a loss to figure out. Chrysler requires a "complete annual layout inspection." For those familiar with die casting, it is naive at best to think that a casting die with 100,000 (or even 50,000) shots will conform 100% to all print dimensions. To correct some of these dimensions would require welding of the steel, which would severely accelerate further deterioration. To replace the cavity set prior to the one-year anniversary would result in scrapping a die that is producing fully functional parts.

Once we have performed this annual layout and find a dimension outside print tolerances, we can no longer knowingly ship parts made with this die. If Chrysler will not give us a deviation to ship, or will not waive the annual layout requirement (both of which have happened), our only alternative is to not ship parts. Yet, Chrylser tells us that we MUST ship parts.

If we send the die to the tool shop to have the discrepancies corrected, we still will miss shipments. If we produce a bank of parts to allow us time to correct the die, then we can't ship those parts, either.

I wonder if anyone at Chrysler really considered the potential ramifications of this requirement. Has anyone had any experience with dealing with this issue? (I would ask my registrar, but am reluctant to do so, for unstated obvious reasons).

In addition, it is only going to get worse, because effective January 1, 1999, Ford will also require annual layout.
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 13th July 1998, 11:37 AM
Max Perez
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave: Some questions about how you got into this problem in the first place (that your customer is bound to ask when they find out about the problem, whether they hear it from you or the assembly plants when they complain):
1) If you are in the business of making dies that are high wearing, were they not designed to wear from the maximum down to the minimum (or vice versa depending on the part of the die you are looking at)?
2) Did the die wear surprise you? If it did, I hope your FMEA's were revised (D and P). If it didn't, did you mention it to the customer when you were quoting the program so that a back up plan can be generated and implemented when the time comes?
3) Why does a nonconforming dimension have to only be found at the annual inspection? If wear is an issue in your commodity, doesn't it make sense to track tool wear on a regular basis (a-la SPC) in order to implement PREDICTIVE maintenance?
Lastly, the customer is not an ogre that has to be fought, but a partner that should be consulted when you are in a jam. Some suppliers are afraid to discuss their problems with the customer because they are afraid of possible repercussions, but remember, the customer has been shafted may times in the past by suppliers that are less than honest. A little honestly goes a long way, but don't expect to come out of this jam scot free, after all, you are the supplier and you are supposed to know your product (that's why you got the business). If your company comes forward discreetly and honestly, I'm sure you'll be able to work something out.
Good luck!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 15th July 1998, 01:19 AM
David McGan David McGan is offline
Involved in Discussions

Registration Date: Jul 2003
Location: Corydon, KY, USA
 
Posts: 45
Thanks Given to Others: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 26
Karma: 10
David McGan has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Send a message via Yahoo to David McGan
Default

Max, the situation became a problem with the advent of Chrysler's requirement for annual layout and the fact that a third party auditor would be confirming compliance. As stated before, I don't believe there is anyone associated in a knowledgeable way with the die casting industry -- including Chrysler Buyers or Quality Specialists -- that would think that all 200-300 dimensions of a part print would remain within specification tolerances during the entire life of a set of cavities. We're not talking about functional dimensions. Yes, those are covered on our FMEA, Control Plan, Die Construction plans, etc. Rather, the dimensions in question are generally radii, surface conditions -- all of which everyone agrees is a nonfunctional concern.

In answer to your questions:
1) If you are in the business of making dies that are high wearing, were they not designed to wear from the maximum down to the minimum (or vice versa depending on the part of the die you are looking at)? YES, OUR DIES are designed to optimize the life of the cavities to make functional parts.

2) Did the die wear surprise you? IN GENERAL, WE ANTICIPATE a cavity life of approximately 125,000 shots from dies making parts for a particular alloy. We have procedures in place to have replacement tooling built in a timely fashion, before functionality of the parts is impacted. However, the industry NEVER has operated under the assumption that ALL dimensions would remain 100% in compliance throughout the useful life of each set of cavities. (An analogy might be an automobile: An automobile does not retain 100% of its specifications throughout the useful life of the automobile). In many cases, with Chrysler, we have contacted them for replacement cavity money, and they have delayed the approval of those funds for several months, which results in some of our dies having to be used for double the anticipated life of the cavities.

3) Why does a nonconforming dimension have to only be found at the annual inspection? THERE IS EXTENSIVE tracking of functional dimensions. We check many dimensions reqularly during each production run. Die maintenance necessary to maintain these dimensions that might affect functionality of the parts is on-going.

Lastly, the customer is not an ogre that has to be fought, but a partner that should be consulted when you are in a jam. OUR EXPERIENCE WITH CHRYSLER would appear to be counter than what you might have experienced. We did go to them with this concern, but have found no one at this point who is willing to work with us as a partner to address this issue on a more global scale. However, we've made some additional contacts within Chrysler since my first post and I believe we are making progress. However, the world of die casting doesn't appear to be as simple as yours. In any event, I appreciate your comments.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13th March 1999, 10:52 AM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is offline
Your Elsmar Cove Host

Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
 
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,567 Times in 1,019 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 605
Karma: 11564
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Marc Send a message via Skype™ to Marc
Default

Any other coomments on this thread?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13th March 1999, 10:58 AM
David McGan David McGan is offline
Involved in Discussions

Registration Date: Jul 2003
Location: Corydon, KY, USA
 
Posts: 45
Thanks Given to Others: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 26
Karma: 10
David McGan has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Send a message via Yahoo to David McGan
Default

Well, since you asked, Mark....
We "resolved" the situation by implementing a procedure where we would notify Chrysler 30 days prior to annual layout that the layout was going to occur. And that when we did the layout, we fully expect to find some non-functional dimensions out of spec. At that point, Chrysler would have to be prepared to give us waivers before we would ship any additional parts. It's worked so far.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13th March 1999, 11:04 AM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is offline
Your Elsmar Cove Host

Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
 
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,567 Times in 1,019 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 605
Karma: 11564
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Marc Send a message via Skype™ to Marc
Default

Thanks for the update!! It's appreciated!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard > QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Annual Requirements - TS 16949 - 8.2.4.1 Layout inspection and functional testing atlantisind Inspection and Test, Sampling and Related Topics 2 18th October 2006 11:32 AM
DCX Annual Layout Requirements including Subcomponents michu Customer and Company Specific Requirements 1 12th September 2006 04:32 PM
Request for annual PPAP by Tier 1 instead of an annual layout Howard Atkins APQP and PPAP 10 18th October 2004 11:21 PM
Annual Gage and Part Layout - Is this a requirement? JaySturgeon APQP and PPAP 1 24th July 2003 01:10 AM
Ford Requirement - Annual Layout - Completely re-validate parts on an annual basis? Zanzi Customer and Company Specific Requirements 1 28th January 2003 10:16 AM



The time now is 08:53 PM. All times are GMT -4.
The time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



   

All Y'All Come Back Now, Y' Hear?

Made With A Mac! FreeBSD OS Powered by Apache!
Using php4 Forums provided and maintained by Marc Smith Database by MySQL

FAIR USE and CORRECTNESS NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe herein constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In addition, I do not guarantee the correctness of the content. The risk of using content from the Elsmar Cove web site and forums remains with the user/visitor.

Responsibility Statement: Each person is responsible for anything they post in the Elsmar Cove forum. Neither I, Marc Timothy Smith, nor any of the forum Moderators, are responsible for the content of posts people make. Liability for post content resides with the poster as does interpretation and/or acceptance and/or use of advice by the reader.

Complaints: If you have a complaint with a post in a forum discussion thread, including Content in general, fighting, flaming, copyright infringement, defamation and/or 'slander', please use the 'Report This Post Report This Post Button button which appears at the top of every post in every thread.

Site courtesy of:
Marc Timothy Smith - Cayman Business Systems, 8466 Lesourdsville-West Chester Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929 - USA
(513) 341-6272

To contact me, click the Google Voice link below, enter Your Name and Your Phone Number and Google will ring your phone and connect you for free!

The Elsmar Cove Web Site is *CopyFree*
no new posts