2013 - 7QC Story - Brakes Team - Front Pad Worn Out in Sumo

7 Step QC story
Problem Solving Methodology
7 Step QC story
SUMO Front Brake pad worn out
Team: Brake System
Copyright, Confidential, Tata Motors Ltd
Slide 1
7 Step QC story
Step: 1 Define Project: Team Charter & Goal Statement
Team Charter
Goal
Structure
# Warranty reduction of Brake judder/ Pad worn out- issue

resolution by structured problem solving methodology
# Developing Detection Strategy throughout manufacturing
and inspection process
# Updating Design Guideline, DFMEA, DVP, RFQ and
Process Documents based on Failure Mode Analysis and
Permanent Corrective Actions
Team Leader
- Mr.Bisen Badal
Co - Leader
- Mr. Ramani K.R
Team Members Mr. Jagdish G Naganoor, Mr.K.Pavan, Mr.Karadi S.B, Mr.Gharat .R.V,
Mr.Kulkarni S.G, Mr Mhaske, Mr Deshpande.R, Mr Patil suhas,Mr
Diwakar.R, Mr Satyajit Patil.
Target
Training Needs
Current Status
Target
Model
(6Monthly IPTV- Aug 12

Production Batch)
(6Monthly IPTV- May12

Production Batch)
SUMO GOLD
0.66+1.99
Review Mechanism
Review with Mentor
Mr G R Nagbushan
Review with Champion
Mr Suyog panse
Review with Team Leader
Mr Bisen Badal
Slide 2
7 Step QC story
Step: 1 Define Project: Team Charter & Goal Statement
CFT STRUCTURE- Define Roles & Responsibility

Aggregates : Brakes
Project Front brake pad worn out/ Defective
Mentor :
Champion: Bisen Badal
SR No
Team member
Contact no
Department
Mr. Gharat.R.V
Mr. Kulkarni.S.G
QA
Mr. Mhaske
QA
Mr. Karadi.S.B
Mr. Deshpande.R
APL
Mr. Jagdish G.N
ERC
Mr. Pavan.K
8149095987
ERC
Mr. Asnikar.G
9881509735
ERC
Mr. Suhas Patil
Mfg
10
Mr. Diwakar.R
Mfg
11
Mr. Satyajit Patil
8149059178
Role
7276045242
QA
ADD
Six Sigma
Slide 3
7 Step QC story
Step: 1 Define Project: Action Planner
2013
Action planner
Feb
4
Project : Brake Pad worn out
March
7
11
12
13
April
14
15
18
19
20
May
21
25
26
27
28
29
Plan
Team Charter
CFT formation
Act
Plan
GOAL Statement
Target Definition
Act
Data Collection
Warranty / JD/ CC DVP/

DFMEA/ Standards /
PFMEA/ SOP/WI
Plan
Act
PLAN
Plan
Data Stratification
Multi level parito
Failed part s
analysis
On test rig/ Vehicle analysis

(Min 30 failed parts
Problem Definition
Focused issue to be worked

upon
Deeper Analysis
Why- Why / 5W-2H analysis
Bench marking
Competitor products/
Process benchmark (min 3)
Cause Effect
Analysis
Ishakawa Diagram
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Action
Progress
Slide 4
7 Step QC story
Step: 1 Define Project: Action Planner
2013
Action planner
FEB
4
DO
Project : Brake Pad worn out
11
12
13
APRIL
14
15
18
19
20
MAY
21
25
26
27
28
29
Plan
Containment
Action
Interim Corrective Action
Verification &
Validation of
causes
3G Analysis
Root cause analysis
MARCH
Act
Plan
Act
7QC tool and 8D
methodology
Plan
Action
Check
Act
Plan
Verification &
Validation
Sample batch tryout
Action
Implementation
Permanent corrective
action
Check Results
Warranty / JDP/ Customer

complaints
Act
Recurrence
prevention
Capture the learning &

documents DFMEA,
PFMEA , Design rule,
Control plant/ WI
Standardization
Horizontal deployment
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Act
Plan
Felicitation
Act
Plan
Action
Progress
Slide 5
7 Step QC story
Bird Eye View
Step: 1 Define Project: Bird Eye view

FY11-12
FY12-13
Field IPTV
FY10-11
75
FSO Not Ok at TML for assly run out (nos)
50
50
nos
nos
25
25
13
0
Dec-12
Jan-13
0
Jan-13
Sep-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
Dec-12
75
Brake disc Primary Rejection VQA( nos)
Jun-12
Jan-12
Dec-11
Nov-11
Oct-11
Sep-11
Aug-11
Jul-11
Jun-11
May-11
Apr-11
Mar-11
Feb-11
Brake disc Primary Rejection VQA( nos)
50
29
nos
50
Data not available
Oct-12
Nov-12
May-12
10
Apr-12
nos
25
25
10
0
Supplier Data Not Available for

brake pad, caliper defects
Nov-12
Oct-12
Sep-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
May-12
Apr-12
Data not available
Jun-12
Mar-12
Feb-12
Jan-12
Dec-11
Nov-11
Oct-11
Sep-11
Aug-11
Jul-11
Jun-11
May-11
Apr-11
Mar-11
Feb-11
Jan-11
In-House Re
75
Supplier EOL
Mar-12
Feb-12
Jan-12
Jan-11
In Process
No data available
FSO Not Ok at TML for assly run out (nos)
75
Data not available
Take away: Detection adequate at Process, incoming stage for brake disc and hub defects.No failure of wheel cylinder at assly stage.
Slide 6
IPTV
REAR
WHEEL
CYLINDER
BRAKE
DISC
82%

5.98
88%
0.66
VACUUM
BRAKE
BOOSTER FIEXIBLE
HOSE
Compl Description
94%
0.66
BRK
LINERS
Aggregates
100%
71%
53%
1.99
0.66
0
40
40
20
3 mth
Jun/11
6 mth
12 mth
18 mth
17
3
2
Mar/12
Apr/12
May/12
1
0
2
Jul/12
Aug/12
Sep/12
Oct/12
Jun/12
20
Feb/12
26
11
11
16
26
22
19
15
3
Nov/11
25
18
Jan/12
Oct/11
Dec/11
Sep/11
33
41
41
Aug/11
18
71
64 75
65
69
66
60
77
62 70
56
53 66
61
May/11
31
28
32
2331
59
73
Jul/11
4 11
9
Apr/11
21
1823
39
1 10
Mar/11
28 39
2530
33
Feb/11
Dec/10
37
Jan/11
6 1016
41
43 54
59 70
57
Nov/10
1924
23 34
20 2935
Jul/10
0
Aug/10
3338
60
12
Percentage
80
Oct/10
8%
Sep/10
11
Brakes 6M IPTV
100%
99%
99%
97%
94%
91%
86%
80%
71%
63%
124
98106 122
124
120
6 15
141
140
Jun/10
May/10
Model level IPTV
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cmpls / 1000
Gear box
Chassis
Cooling
Axle
% Contribution
Suspension
Steering
HVAC
11
12
14
14 53%
40
Sumo
Brakes
Engine electricals
Engine
Clutch
43%
20
29%
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cab
Electricals
Cmpls (IPTV)
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.0- Data Collection

Brake Aggregate Graph
100
24 mth
120%
100%
80%
60%
1.33
40%
20%
0%
CALIPER
PAD
Slide 7
7 Step QC story
Model Wise Production Vs Reported Complaints (Brake Aggregates)
Period - JAN 12 To AUG 12
3500
17
19
22
No of vehicle produced
26
Stop light switch gap

adjustment gauge
introduced at TCF
200
Gap checking gauge

introduced at final
inspection
20
3000
11
150
16
2500
2000
100
11
1500
1000
No of Concerns
Brake pedal hole

tolerance revised on
NOV -11
4000
Production Batch
6-Monthly IPTV
50
500
0
No of complaints
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
3058
2890
2982
3221
3564
2393
1506
2979
58
65
61
55
93
39
17
33
Brake complaints shows down trend after June batch production by approx 40%
Corrective Action Implemented
Slide 8
7 Step QC story
SUMO BRAKE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED DEFECT WISE
Period - JAN 12 To AUG 12 production batch
350
120
250
77
82
86
90
92
94
95
96
97
99
98
100
100
80
70
200
59
60
150
100
40
31
Cum % Age
300
20
50
0
Wheel
cylinder
leak/Sc
ored
Brake
disc
runout/
uneven
contact
Brake
vacuum
booster
all
defects
Brake
Brake
drum
master
scored/
cyl leak/
uneven
Scored
contact
Caliper
pad
worn/
Crack
Caliper
assy all
defects
Brake
liners
worn/
cracked
Parking
brake
cable
defect
No of complaints
314
276
112
71
50
44
43
24
cum % Age
31
59
70
77
82
86
90
92
Hand
brake
LCRV
Defectiv lever
e
knob
broken
Brake
pipe
crack/
Leak
Brake
line
connect
ors leak
Brake
Hose
crack/
Leak
ABS all
defects
23
17
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
0
Brake
fluid
contain
er/ leak
2
Top Four Brake complaints contributes 77% of total brake aggregates complaints .
Slide 9
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.1- Data Collection: Front brake pad worn out
5.3
3.1
4.1
3.5
3.3
2500
15
1.2
2000
10
0.6
1500
1000
40
No of Complaints
3000
3.5
No of Complaints
No of Vehicle produced
3500
20
500
0
No of Complaints
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No of complaints
% Age
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
3058
2890
2982
3221
3564
2393
1506
2979
11
12
10
10
19
Front Brake pad Worn out City Wise

85
82
79
75
60
40
20
Delhi
Bangalo
re
Pune
29
13
43
62
Deharad
Bijapur Mumbai Others
un
75
3
79
2
82
2
85
40
10
20
WEST
EAST
No of complaints
37
16
11
% Age
53
72
95
100
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
100
60
20
Front Brake pad Worn out Kms Wise

80
43
53
SOUTH
100
62
100
80
NORTH
100
No of Complaints
No of complaints
MAR
%Age
VEHICLE PR
FEB
72
30
0
JAN
Front Brake pad Worn out Region Wise

100
95
%Age
Front Brake pad Worn out Monthly IPTV

4000
No of complaints
> 5K
5K-10K
10k-15K
15K - 20K
12
33
18
Pad worn out trend is similar to overall brake aggregates trend .

75 % of Pad worn out cases are reported from dense city traffic condition.
Slide 10
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.1- Data Collection :: Front brake pad worn out
PCR data received from Jan 12- Aug-12
Matrix Chart
Dealer
Analysis
Customer
Verbatim
Brake pad
Defective
Brake pad hard/

Glazed
Brake Hard
Brake Insufficient
% Age
5%
3%
10
19
27%
6%
25
31
44%
11
15%
100%
Brake Jam
Brake Noisy
11
Brake shuddering
Grand total
% Age
Uneven
Wear
Total
Brake Grabbing
Brake Pad
worn
out
53
71
7%
10%
76%
7%
100%
86 % Customer has reported Brake noisy , Brake insufficient & Brake Shuddering due to front brake
pad worn out.
76 % of complaints found that the friction material was completely worn out .
Slide 11
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.1- Data Collection :: Front brake pad worn out
Matrix Chart
Failure
Mode
Brake Pad
worn out
Total
% Age
15
15
48%
13%
Brake Pad Worn out
29%
Uneven Wear
10%
29
31
100%
6%
94%
100%
Dealer
Analysis
Brake pad Hard/

Glazed
Material Receipt at TML & Investigated
Brake Pad Defective
Brake Pad Hard/ Glazed
Grand total
% Age
94 % of complaints reported found that the friction material was completely worn out .
Slide 12
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.2- Under Standing
Process documents, drawings, Control Plans, WIS, DVP, DFMEA, Design Guideline
Dealer
Analysis
DESIGN CONTROLS
Sl No
Design Control Activity
Front Caliper/ Brake pad Part Drawing Release
Information Fitment Drawings
Design Validation Plan (DVP)
DFMEA
Test Specifications (TS)
Service Advisory
Document
8
Slide 13
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.3- Failed part Analysis
Visual / On Test Rig / Vehicle analysis (Minimum 30 failed parts)
Dealer
Analysis
Visual
Inspection
OK
Pass
Test on
Vehicle
Fail
OK
Testing
on Test
rig
NOT OK
GAP ANALYSIS
Simulating testing
methods with Actual
customer usage.
DVP up-dation.
Identifying new test
methodology
Friction material property

analysis
Critical parameters
Measurements
Fail
Trials with
customer
support
Pass
Feedback to dealer through
CS
Root cause Identification

Slide 14
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.3- Failed part Analysis
Total number of complaint investigated - 31

Level-2 Pareto for Brake Pad Defective
16
16
14
14
Number of complaints
Level-1 Pareto for Pad worn out -Front
12
10
8
6
4
2
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
Brake pad defective

Brake pad hard/ Glazed
Brake pads worn out Uneven wear
Dealer Analysis
Pads wornout
15
Concern observations
Level-2 Pareto for Brake Pad Hard / Glazed
Level-2 Pareto for Brake pads Worn out & Uneven wear
14
4
3
2
1
12
10
8
6
4
2
15
Brake pad hard/

Glazed
Brake pad worn out
Pads worn out

12
29 number of incidents analyzed and found that friction material was completely worn out .
Slide 15
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:2.5- Problem Definition
Brake pad Worn out

2
Brake
Brake
Grabbing
Hard
19
Brake
insufficient
31
Brake
Brake Jam
Noisy
11
Brake
Shuddering
Brake Pad
Defective
Brake pad
Brake pad
Brake pad
Brake pad
Brake pad
Hard/Glazed
Defective
Worn out
Hard/ Glazed
Worn out
Brake pad
Brake pad
Brake pad
Uneven
Brake pad
worn out
Worn out
Hard/Glazed
wear
Worn out
Brake pad
Uneven
Worn out
Wear
Uneven
wear
94%
6%
Brake pad
Brake pad
Worn out
Hard/Glazed
94% of complaint found that friction material on front brake pad was completely worn out .
Slide 16
7 Step QC story
Step: 2 : Observation:3- Understanding design, mechanism and functionality, benchmarking comparison at concept level
Pedal box Assembly
Stop light switch
Brake pedal
Stop light switch gap
adjustment
Booster Assembly
Knuckle assembly
Disc
Caliper
Slide 17
7 Step QC story
Step: 3 : ANALYSIS : 3.0- CAUSE EFFECT ANALYSIS
Caliper mount offset specification
Knuckle
Brake pedal Assembly
Higher Run-out value
Caliper mount offset
Pedal pivot point tight
Low roll back
Clevis hole/pin tight
HUB
High wear rate
Caliper mount improper parallelism
Brake light switch

improper adjustment
Knuckle
Brake Pads
Ishikawa Diagram for each defect
Firewall deflection
Higher surface finish value
Improper brake distribution

Higher caliper roll back
Sliding pin bend/ Jam
Sluggish return
Improper grade selection
Brake system
Caliper
High standout setting
Poor Surface finish
Brake Booster Assembly
Brake fluid
DISC/DRUM
TMC cutoff port blocked
High DTV / Run out
TMC seal swell
Improper pad selection
Excess out put rod setting
Front brake
pad worn out
Brake light switch improper adjustment
Rim/Tire modifications
Clevis pin tight
Aggregates Un cleaned
Brake pad inconsistence

properties
Skip or improper knuckle

assembly
critical
parameter, DTV/ Run-out
Environment Condition
Coastal Area
Excessive dust / Sand.
Vehicle Overloading
SUPPLIER
High lateral hub play
Customer Usage
TAXI/ Personnel
TML
Brake fluid contamination
Rainy
High traffic/ Hilly terrain
brake servicing at Un authorized

service centers
Pads fitted in reverse direction

Lack of 100% Roll back inspection
Service
Usage of non genuine spare parts
Slide 18
7 Step QC story
Step: 3 : Analysis : Cause & Effect Matrix
Slide 19
7 Step QC story
Analysis results- Summary

CALIPER PAD WORN OUT/FRONT (KC 42011)
Improper Stop light switch adjustment.
High residual drag on BIL caliper 75Kgcm, due to mue-set shims.
Brake pedal sluggish due to tight tolerances of clevis pin & pedal hole.
Appache 522/12 friction material inconsistence in performance.
Poor performance & wear characteristics in City & Hilly region application
Slide 20
7 Step QC story
Action plan - Summary

CALIPER PAD WORN OUT/FRONT (KC 42011)
Brake stop light switch adjustment with designed gap gauge implemented on production line from
March-2012.
As a Poke-Yoke new snap-on type brake stop light switch is designed. Implementation planned from
March -2013.
Mass added caliper (C57), is under validation with Wolverine shim with target residual drag of 50 kg
cm, against current 75 kg cm.
Implementation planned from May - 2013.
Brake pedal hold designed tolerances revised & implemented in production since June -2012.
R 808 friction pads are under validation for performance & wear.
Implementation planned from May 2013, along with mass added caliper.
Slide 21
7 Step QC story
THANK YOU
Slide 22

2013 - 7QC Story - Brakes Team - Front Pad Worn Out in Sumo

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2013 - 7QC Story - Brakes Team - Front Pad Worn Out in Sumo

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

7 Step QC story

Problem Solving Methodology

Team: Brake System

Copyright, Confidential, Tata Motors Ltd

# Warranty reduction of Brake judder/ Pad worn out- issue

- Mr. Ramani K.R

(6Monthly IPTV- Aug 12

(6Monthly IPTV- May12

Copyright, Confidential, Tata Motors Ltd

Review with Mentor

Review with Champion

Review with Team Leader

CFT STRUCTURE- Define Roles & Responsibility

Project Front brake pad worn out/ Defective

Champion: Bisen Badal

Mr. Jagdish G.N

Mr. Suhas Patil

Mr. Satyajit Patil

Copyright, Confidential, Tata Motors Ltd

Project : Brake Pad worn out

Warranty / JD/ CC DVP/

Multi level parito

On test rig/ Vehicle analysis

Focused issue to be worked

Why- Why / 5W-2H analysis

Project : Brake Pad worn out

Interim Corrective Action

Root cause analysis

Sample batch tryout

Warranty / JDP/ Customer

Capture the learning &

Bird Eye View

Step: 1 Define Project: Bird Eye view

FSO Not Ok at TML for assly run out (nos)

Brake disc Primary Rejection VQA( nos)

Brake disc Primary Rejection VQA( nos)

Data not available

Supplier Data Not Available for

Data not available

FSO Not Ok at TML for assly run out (nos)

Data not available

Copyright, Confidential, Tata Motors Ltd

Model level IPTV

Problem Solving Methodology

Step: 2 : Observation:2.0- Data Collection

Stop light switch gap

Gap checking gauge

Brake pedal hole

Corrective Action Implemented

Front Brake pad Worn out City Wise

Front Brake pad Worn out Kms Wise

Front Brake pad Worn out Region Wise

Front Brake pad Worn out Monthly IPTV

Pad worn out trend is similar to overall brake aggregates trend .

Brake pad hard/

Brake Pad Worn out

Brake pad Hard/

Material Receipt at TML & Investigated

Brake Pad Defective

Brake Pad Hard/ Glazed

Copyright, Confidential, Tata Motors Ltd

Design Control Activity