what is the defect code of the issue? case1－品保人的部落格

今天(3-July)和供應商討論一件客訴,缺點現象是花灑夾具因為無法撐住花灑本身的重量而會慢慢彎曲(原本該有的狀況是花灑夾具不能彎曲),因為花灑目前沒有設計變更的可能,所以供應商將方向鎖定夾具的支撐力道的改善.供應商將夾具本體的內部結構改成有Step方式+不同型式的o-ring.

第一步:供應商提出測試報告證明設變前與設變後的支撐力道有明顯差異

第二步:驗證正常測試的狀況下,夾具的確不會彎曲變形
     >當時要求供應商將零部件的重點尺寸+測試結果(before/after)提出

第三步:模擬消費者使用的夾具狀況(傾斜一約120度角度),並重新測試花灑放上後是否會夾具會彎曲
   >測試Fail,夾具彎曲

第四步: 供應商解釋鎖緊扭距不足,所以將扭距從25kg-cm提高至50 kg-cm,並重新試作3 samples,我測試後OK(*)


問題1:要求供應商依正式DOE,重新準備sample並安排(1) pull force test+bending test;(2) cycle test+bending test

問題2:依第四步得出的扭距,要求供應商再準備設變前的樣品計5個並作pull force test+bending test

問題3:要求供應商將零部件的重點尺寸量測數量+測試報告+組裝條件等完全整理後先提供給美國RD確認,才能決定是否允許送樣

Progress review on 7-July
Hi David_B

Thanks for the cycle test result, here is my comment for your information:

1) Pull breakaway force from "before cycle testing" with new design is better than old design under same tightening torque. I have no doubt on this result but I do see a probelm:
    P1: The pull force distributes with a very wide range, you could refer to the chart in the attachment.
    P2: Sample 1N is good, but sample 6N is poor. You could also refer to the trend chart in the attachment.

    My first question: The samples of 10 units do not perform a stable condition of pull force(or torque) and the spec of breakway force is not being clearly defined. This is my purpose for you to complete whole DOE to evaluate what is the potential risk/profit from this new design.

   Q2: Refer to the picture of torque:50 kg-cm, the picture of red indicator shows 25 kg-cm,why?

2) Pull breakaway force from "after cycle testing" with new design with one samples marked as "1N", I have questions for you:
Q3:could you explain why there are two tabe with different title,and one has "Lossen and re-torque":
        >One title is "After Extreme 15.4K Cycle Testing"
        >The other one is "After Extreme 15.4K Cycle Testing - Loosen and re-torque"

Q4: Please check this sample "1N" is same as "1N" in before cycle testing", or not the same?

Q5: Please explain what the data in "after cycle testing" means? what do we get from the data?

Q6: With the new design by 50 kg-cm,please check with o-ring supplier if elastic fatigue will come earlier or the bracket part will fatigue earlier as well?

Let me know if you totally understand my questions for you..

Progress revised on 8-July

Hi David_H,

I reviewed the issue with Sunny and XXXXX Engineer today about the issue. They’ve made another change on the o-ring to increase the height and make the touching surface bezel instead of curved. They tested 5 new made samples with the new o-ring. All samples have around 7~9 kg/cm pull force and passed the holding test. They will put those samples into cycle test. I ask them to try one cavity firstly. If they can get the 1^st cavity approved, they could proceed with other cavities during trial run and complete the DOE you request.

Similar

Progress update on 23-July-->更換0-ring type仍無效
David, Zach,

HSH Bracket: status of new samples and test:

· Parts molded, plated and assembled last week for DOE, cavity 1 only.

· Samples tested Thursday - Saturday with softer V-ring material @ 25kg/cm & 35kg/cm torque did not meet minimum holding force spec.

Thanks,

David_B

(今天(7/24),我與工程師討論新設計方式,以QFD的方式說明,當我是使用者,我希望看到的支架有2種功能:方便使用,與可靠度佳.當然,外觀設計也要讓人賞心悅目...,經過與工程師和客服人員腦力激盪以後,我建議使用正背面gear locking(分段式夾緊)的設計,對方工程師也提出如排檔桿按鈕(按鬆+放緊)的方式設計

(待續)