Eliminating a Recurring Problem of Missing Weld Nuts/Fasteners

[Ady11]

Whilst I cannot say I have the solution to welding issue. Are you in a position to make a process change to the products?

If so prehaps the issues if all nuts being welded could be replaced by introducing the bolt feature using the Flowdrill technique.

Search on Google should help - if not PM me and I can send on the infomation I have.

 

[Laser]

Re: Missing Weld Nuts/Fasteners

Are the weld nuts loaded manually or do you use bowl feeders?

They are loaded manually.

Thank you.

 

[tabare - 2009]

Change the way you issue the material to the floor.

Kit the Quantity of Weld Nuts/Fasteners per assembly in a bag or tote with the component material being fastened. (individual) If there is an extra fastener one was forgotten.

Anyone providing several fasteners with no prescribed Design or Quantity will fail each time.

This should solve your problem.

 

[Stijloor]

Change the way you issue the material to the floor.

Kit the Quantity of Weld Nuts/Fasteners per assembly in a bag or tote with the component material being fastened. (individual) If there is an extra fastener one was forgotten.

Anyone providing several fasteners with no prescribed Design or Quantity will fail each time.

This should solve your problem.

Which was proposed in Post #6.

Stijloor.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Change the way you issue the material to the floor.

Kit the Quantity of Weld Nuts/Fasteners per assembly in a bag or tote with the component material being fastened. (individual) If there is an extra fastener one was forgotten.

The problem with this strategy is that it assumes the "kitted" quantities will always be correct. An extra fastener in the kit can cause confusion, and if the kit is one short, time can be wasted in waiting for one to be issued. I think a happy medium is to have the fasteners stocked at the work location, but require the operator to count out only what's needed for the piece at hand.

Anyone providing several fasteners with no prescribed Design or Quantity will fail each time sometimes.

I fixed that for you.

 

[Umang Vidyarthi]

The problem with this strategy is that it assumes the "kitted" quantities will always be correct. An extra fastener in the kit can cause confusion, and if the kit is one short, time can be wasted in waiting for one to be issued.

There is no need to 'assume', it has to be made mistake-proof. This strategy is successfuly in vogue in Japan for decades. Today, a majority of assembley line system -world over- are using this strategy as a poke-a-yoke. This poke-a-yoke is further being error-proofed by using couting machines, getting rid of the human element.

Another simple and cost effective error-proofing (I'm using in my factory) is, to check the length/height of the requisite number of pieces with an ordinary scale. Say, there are ten number of pieces required at a perticular station, and it fits the height/length of 6 inches. Put sliding clamps on a graduated scale and fix it at six inches. Now the packer doesn't have to worry about counting, he simply fits in the pieces in six inches and puts them in the bin/packet. This eleminates the manual counting and minimises human error. A number of error-proofings can be deviced to suit one's perticular requirement.

Umang

 

[Caster]

A couple of good ideas so far

I like the idea to use a simple template and color mark to show the presence of the weld, fastener.

I will expand on the weighed kit idea, can you weigh the final part to detect missing fastener?

Surprised no one has suggested asking the welders yet! Should have been the first thing, go to gemba, touch, see, do

Why not take this opportunity to do a team event, if they are part of the solution, pride takes over and they will own the problem.

Please post back what you tried and how it worked, good luck!

 

[Jim Wynne]

There is no need to 'assume', it has to be made mistake-proof. This strategy is successfuly in vogue in Japan for decades. Today, a majority of assembley line system -world over- are using this strategy as a poke-a-yoke. This poke-a-yoke is further being error-proofed by using couting machines, getting rid of the human element.

If the cost of mistake-proofing is justified, by all means do it. Counting machines don't run themselves, though, and not all companies and assembly operations are large enough to justify them.

 

[Stijloor]

If the cost of mistake-proofing is justified, by all means do it. Counting machines don't run themselves, though, and not all companies and assembly operations are large enough to justify them.

Some of my Clients use weigh count. That equipment is not cheap and must be calibrated, but the cost and effort far outweigh (no pun intended) the expenses and misery associated with repairs and customer returns.

Stijloor.

 

[Umang Vidyarthi]

If the cost of mistake-proofing is justified, by all means do it. Counting machines don't run themselves, though, and not all companies and assembly operations are large enough to justify them.

1. That goes without saying. Anything and everything (mistake-proofing inclusive) has to be cost effective, even a novice knows that.

2. Counting machines (and any automation for that matter) is a boon for large productions, perticularly in places where the labour is expensive. It saves the labor cost with the added advantage of error-proofing.

3. There are cheaper options for mistake-proofing. One of which is weighing option, sighted by Stijloor, and another I mentioned in para 2 of my post (#16) under reference, which perhaps you failed to see. I am reproducing the same for ready reference:

Another simple and cost effective error-proofing (I'm using in my factory) is, to check the length/height of the requisite number of pieces with an ordinary scale. Say, there are ten number of pieces required at a perticular station, and it fits the height/length of 6 inches. Put sliding clamps on a graduated scale and fix it at six inches. Now the packer doesn't have to worry about counting, he simply fits in the pieces in six inches and puts them in the bin/packet. This eleminates the manual counting and minimises human error. A number of error-proofings can be deviced to suit one's perticular requirement.

Umang