Ms.

Suranjeeta Dhar
Ms. Medina Kaknjo

Ford Motor Company

Importance of Robust FMEA Development in

Reducing Heat Treat Product Issues
Overview

• Heat Treat Systemic Issues

• Two (2) case studies will be presented that exemplify
the significance of FMEA in mitigating risks of heat
treat systemic issues
• Key inputs for consideration in developing robust Heat
Treat PFMEA
• Risk Mitigation Tool - AIAG CQI-9 Special Process: Heat
Treat System Assessment
• Linkage of Heat Treat PFMEA to CQI-9 Requirements
• Data from NHTSA and automotive company databases
showing improvement in heat treat related issues
Introduction

• Improperly heat treated product is not easily discernible in form and

appearance from properly heat treated product
• Robust process and product control is critical to ensure all parts meet
product specifications
• Comprehensive review and development of a robust FMEA is key input in
defining the process and product controls.
• AIAG CQI-9 Heat Treat System Assessment is a constructive resource for
evaluating process and product control systems in heat treating
Key Heat Treat Systemic Issues
CASE STUDIES
Case Study #1 – Fastener Issue

• Vehicles unable to start due to broken ground cable bolts

• Bolts were neutral hardened in a continuous heat treat
shaker furnace
• The broken bolts exceeded the hardness specification
• Microstructure analysis of the broken bolts revealed
untempered martensite which resulted due to improper
tempering operation
Case Study #1 – Fastener Issue

• Investigation of the process revealed the flat

hearth of the shaker furnace allowed free
movement of some of the bulk loaded bolts.
• The unintended free movement of the bolts
prevented them from being processed
adequately through the tempering operation in
the furnace.
• Inadequately tempered bolts were
unintentionally mixed with properly tempered
bolts.
SYSTEMIC ROOT CAUSES

• The heat treater did not perform adequate advanced

quality planning to identify criticality of furnace part
handling design.

• Failure mode not identified in the process FMEA.

• Process controls critical to quality were not identified.

• Furnace design (DFMEA) did not consider different

failure modes, severity and occurrence for handling
small parts of various design.
Case Study #2 – Induction Hardening Issue

• Parts were found broken in vehicle

upon delivery to dealership.
• Investigation of broken part revealed
crack initiated at OD.
• Cause of crack was determined to be
overheating during induction
hardening.
Case Study #2 – Induction Hardening Issue

• Review of heat treat process control at process owner revealed the

following issues:
– Dwell time and power were allowed to be adjusted by the
operator after setup verification
– Rotation speed was not monitored nor measured.
• In addition the following characteristics were not properly checked:
– Hardness and case depth were not being checked in the critical
radius or the transition from a large to small diameter.
– Longitudinal sections were not obtained consistently from the
center of the bearing journal for macro case depth inspection.
SYSTEMIC ROOT CAUSES

• The heat treater did not perform adequate advanced quality

planning to identify critical location for heat treat pattern
check.

• Failure mode not identified in the process FMEA.

• Process controls critical to quality were not identified and did

not meet minimum requirements.

• Control plan did not include checking of microstructure at the

minimum required frequency.
KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Most of the Heat Treat systemic issues can be directly related to failure
modes and key operational steps not identified in the FMEA.

• Heat Treat characteristics are “Pass-Thru” in nature. This means heat treat
defects are difficult to detect through subsequent assembly processes and
can be passed on to the end customer.

• Most heat treat characteristics can be verified through destructive

methods only. Hence having a good understanding of heat treat failure
modes associated with each process step is crucial in order to have robust
controls.

• Driving robustness in FMEA development is the critical to mitigate risks

related to heat treat issues.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR ROBUST
FMEA AND BEST PRACTICE
HEAT TREAT FMEA FUNDAMENTALS

• Following the AIAG PFMEA guidelines, Heat Treat FMEA should include identification
and evaluation of both process and product failure modes.
• Evaluation of process failure modes should begin with developing a detailed process
map.
• For robustness, Heat Treat FMEAs should be inclusive of all operational steps from part
receipt to shipment as key process inputs, such as:
 Receiving
Austenizing/Solutionizing
 Product Staging Transfer time
 Product Handling Quenching
 Pre-Treatment Tempering/Aging
 Loading/Fixturing/Positioning Post-wash
 Pre-wash/Rinsing
KEY PROCESS EVALUATION METHOD

One method is to map key process inputs to corresponding outputs.

Each Key Process Input should be further evaluated for sub functions.
EXAMPLE KPI (KEY PROCESS INPUT) #1
• X = Product Handling
– x1 = Product Identification
– x2 = Product Traceability
– x3 = Control of non-conforming product
– x4 = Identification of trap points
– x5 = Inspection of containers for foreign material
– x6 = Product segregation during equipment emergency

For every KPI, the Key Process Outputs should be similarly evaluated.
KPO (KEY PROCESS OUTPUT) #1
• Y = Mixed Product
– y1 = Green parts mixed with heat treated parts
– y2 = Improperly heat treated parts mixed with good parts
– y3 = Foreign parts mixed with good parts
KEY PROCESS EVALUATION METHOD

P-Diagrams that are typically used to develop DFMEA’s can also be

effectively used to determine both Key Process Inputs as well as
Outputs.
HEAT TREAT PROCESS P-DIAGRAM
Example of a P-Diagram For Induction Heat Treated Shaft
Noise Factors Special Characteristics

N1: Incoming material SC17 - Shaft alignment between shaft OD and nose ID
N1.1: Composition SC18 - Shaft Static Torsional Break Torque
N1.2: Surface Hardness
N1.3: Toughness
N1.4: Torsional Strength
N1.5: Fatigue Strength
N2: Equipment wear/ Coil leakage
N3: Quench
N3.1: Concentration variation, contamination
N3.2: Temperature
N3.3: Flow Variation
N4: Power supply variation
N5: Part temperature variation
N6: Delay in temper
N7: Coil resistivity change over time

Key Process Inputs

1. Power/Frequency
Expected Process Outputs
2.
3.
Quenching
Heating Induction Heat Treat Y1: Acceptable microstructure, case depth, pattern and hardness
4. Part Loading Y2: No evidence of overheating or cracks
Shaft Y3: Meets torsional strength (torque requirement)
5. Tempering
6. Coil (Type and condition) Y4: Meets expected fatigue life (B10)
7. Material Chemistry
8. Part to Coil Position
Output Monitoring Methods
Process Control/Monitoring Methods Manufacturing Control Factors Error States Y1-1: Check for hardness (surface, case, core) and case depth per
control plan*
X1: Continuous Energy monitoring with set control X1: Energy E1: Cracked part Y1-2: Check for case pattern from longitudinal section(s) per
limits* X2: Quench E5: Part distortion control plan*
X2: Automatic recipe driven control of Quench within X2.1: Flow X2.2: Pressure E2: Broken shaft Y1-3: Verify microstructure through metallurgical section(s)*
set limits, verification of quench alarm. X2.3: Level X2.4: Delay E3: Noisy compressor due to premature wear Y2: Visually inspect for cracks
X3: Set recipe to control X3, following first piece setup , X2.5: Temperature X2.6: Concentration of shaft Y3: Conduct torque testing on assembly per control plan
process deviation alarms and verification of alarms. X2.7: Time E4: Mixed part (unheatreated/scrap/setup part
X4: Part loading procedure/work instruction/visual aids X2.8: PM for quench plenum, quench lines mixed with good) impacting large suspect
X5: Set recipe for Temper Control following first piece X2.9: Quench alarm volume
setup verification process deviation alarms and alarm X3: Heat
verification X3.1: Cycle timeX X3.2: Rotation speed
X6: Coil identification and tracking, tracking of coil X3.3: Travel speed/distance X3.4: Process alarms
rebuilds, verification of coil dimension to print/design. X4: Part loading
X7: Verification of the material certification to X5: Temper
specification for chemistry and hardenability. X5.1: Delay X5.2: Temperature
X5.3: Time X5.4: Process alarms
X8: Position verification through 1st piece setup, gages X6: Coil management
(calipers, thickness gage etc.) and sensors (optical, X6.1: Type X6.2: Dimension
proximity switches)* X6.3: Condition X6.4: Traceability
X7: Material
X9: Heat treat lot control procedure and work X7.1: Chemistry X7.2: Hardenability
instructions for part segregation in the event of process X8: First piece setup verification with correct process recipe
deviation, interruption and power failure* X9: Heat Treat Lot Control
HEAT TREAT PROCESS P-DIAGRAM
Example of a P-Diagram For Gaseous Nitrocarburizing Process
ROBUST IDENTIFICATION OF TYPES OF
FAILURE MODES
Four types of Failure Modes occur as listed below. The first and second
types are commonly applied whereas, the third and fourth types are
typically missed when identifying failure modes.

1.NO FUNCTION.
2.PARTIAL/OVER FUNCTION/DEGRADED OVER TIME.
3.INTERMITTENT FUNCTION.
4.UNINTENDED FUNCTION

A good check to discover “hidden” functions is to match all possible failures

with the appropriate functions.
BEST PRACTICE

• Heat Treat FMEAs can be developed as part specific, process specific or part
family based FMEA.
• Development of the Heat Treat FMEA should begin with a detailed process
map.
• Tools such as Input/Output Function, P-Diagrams help drive robustness in
evaluating key process inputs and outputs to be included in the FMEA.
• Ensuring all types of failure modes are taken into consideration in order to
account for “hidden” functions.
• Industry standard, AIAG CQI-9, serves as an additional reference for
guidance to key process inputs and outputs for specific heat treat processes.
AIAG CQI-9 SPECIAL PROCESS:
HEAT TREAT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT
AIAG SPECIAL PROCESS: HEAT TREAT
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
Project Team Organization
Quality Steering Special Processes
Committee Sponsors
Manage &
Implement
Special
Processes Heat Treat Work Group (CQI-9)
Project Team
Plating Work Group (CQI-11)
Technical
Experts Welding Work Group (CQI-15)
Soldering (CQI-17)
Coatings & Pretreatment Work Group(CQI-12)
CQI – 9 HEAT TREAT WORK GROUP

• Core Members • Supporting Members

– Phil Mikula (Chair) – TRW – Mike Wiezbowski – Chrysler
– Madhu Chatterjee – Bodycote – Mike Oberg – Induction
– Rick Metcalf & Dave Paluch – GM Services
– Medina Kaknjo & Suranjeeta Dhar – Ford – Jeff Martin – ZF
NA – Leonard Gadzinski –
– Peter Schiefer – Ford Europe Acument
– Stefan Bruder – Bodycote Europe
– Pete Batche – Akebono NA
– Dean Higdon – Acument
– Virender Choudhri – Delphi
– Werner Schwan – Bosch Europe
– Darrell Rydzewski – Control Services
– Thomas Ruecker – Invensys Europe
CQI-9 – Applicable Processes
• Carburizing (including low pressure or vacuum)
• Carbonitriding
• Carbon Correction
• Neutral Hardening (Quench & Tempering)
• Nitriding (Gas and Ion or Plasma)
• Ferritic Nitrocarburizing (FNC – Gas or Salt)
• Sinter Hardening (powder metal)
• Aluminum Solution Treating / Age Hardening
• Precipitation Hardening
• Austempering
• Martempering
• Tempering
• Induction Heat Treating
• Normalizing, Annealing, & Stress-Relieving
CQI-9 Summary

• 1st edition released March 2006

• 2nd edition released 3rd Quarter 2007
• 3rd edition available now; effective for 2012 CQI-9
assessments
– Added process tables
– Revised/added element questions
– Eliminated reference to AMS 2750
– Miscellaneous Changes
CQI-9 Goals

• Reduction of campaigns, spills, recalls and warranty claims related to heat

treated components
• Focus on specific technical process control for implementation of quality
systems
• Standardize heat treat surveys within the automotive industry
Typical Utilization of CQI-9

CQI-9 Process Flow – High Level

CQI-9 HEAT TREAT FMEA REQUIREMENTS

CQI-9 3rd Edition HTSA Question # 1.3

• Question:
Are heat treat FMEA’s up to date and reflecting current processing?

• Requirements and Guidance:

The organization shall incorporate the use of a documented Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (FMEA) procedure and ensure the FMEA’s are updated to reflect current part
quality status. The FMEA shall be written for each part or part family or maybe process-
specific and written for each process. In any case, they shall address all process steps
from part receipt to part shipment and all key heat treat process parameters as defined
by the organization. A cross-functional team shall be used in the development of the
FMEA. All special characteristics, as defined by the organization and its customers, shall
be identified, defined, and addressed in the FMEA.
INFLUENCE ON HEAT TREAT
RISK MITIGATION
NHSTA Data

• The recall data base from NHTSA was reviewed.

• Recalls between 1999 and 2005 were compared to recalls between 2006
and 2012.
• The number of recalls due to improper heat treat, the number of vehicles
recalled, and the average number of vehicles per year were determined.
NHSTA Data
Analysis of data was
limited to 6 years prior and
Down post implementation of
by CQI-9 requirements
288,775 Down by
vehicles 76,608
vehicles/year
by 2

Note: Although number of recalls increased during this period, the

total number vehicles affected were significantly reduced suggesting
better lot control.
Automotive Data

• Number of field occurrences and suspended shipments from

1999 to 2012 were analyzed.
• The data shows a decrease of heat treat related issues since
CQI-9 was introduced globally
Automotive Data

Analysis of data
65% 30% 38% was limited to 6
Improvement
Improvement Improvement
years prior and
post
implementation
of CQI-9
requirements
Summary

• Two (2) case studies were presented to show the importance of

developing robust FMEA.
• Key inputs to Heat Treat PFMEA, some Best Practices and the linkage to
Heat Treat Industry Standard, AIAG CQI-9 was discussed.
• AIAG CQI-9 Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment was
described and typical utilization of CQI-9 was presented.
• Lastly, NHTSA data and automotive company data showed the
improvement in heat treat related issues since the implementation of
CQI-9 in 2006.
Conclusion

• Robust FMEA development is the key to mitigating heat treat related

product issues.
• Global implementation of CQI-9 helped mitigate some of the risks
through standardizing heat treat requirements in the industry
• Global implementation of CQI-9 significantly reduced heat treat
related issues
• CQI-9 provides proper guidance to avoid improper heat treated parts
from being produced or shipped to the customer
References

• ASM International Materials Handbook, Volume 4, 10th Edition p. 573 - 586

• Unpublished research by S. Dhar, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, USA
• Ford FMEA Handbook v4.2
• AIAG, CQI-9 Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment 3rd edition, p.6
• http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/downloads/flatfiles.cfm, Federal Department
of Transportation, National Highway Safety Association, FLAT_RCL.zip, last
modified July 10, 2013
• Reducing Heat Treat Product Issues in the Global Automotive Heat Treat
Supply Chain – S. Dhar, M. Kaknjo, P. Mikula, T. Buck, ASM HT Conference
2013.