VDA - Band - 16 - 3. Ausgabe 2016 - Englisch

Umschlag_Band_16_engl:Umschlag_rot 06.04.
2009 10:17 Uhr Seite 1
Quality Management
in the Automotive Industry
16
Decorative surfaces of accessories
and functional parts in the exterior and
interior areas of automobiles
Evaluation conditions
Feature definitions and approach to defects
Acceptance criteria
VDA Volume 16
3rd revised edition 2016

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom
VDA-QMC Internetportal am 18.01.2018 um 07:12
Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.


Decorative surfaces of accessories
and functional parts in the exterior
and interior areas of automobiles
Evaluation conditions
Definitions of characteristics and dealing with defects
Acceptance criteria
rd
3 revised edition 2016
Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)


ISSN 0943-9412
Printing: Sept. 2016
English Edition: Oct. 2017
Copyright 2016 by

Qualitäts Management Center (QMC)
Behrenstraße 35, 10117 Berlin
Production:
Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH
Schwanheimer Straße 110, 60528 Frankfurt am Main
Printed on chlorine-free bleached paper.


Non-binding VDA recommendation of standards
The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) recommends

that its members apply the following recommendation of standards for the
implementation and maintenance of quality management (QM) systems.
Exclusion of liability
VDA volumes are recommendations available for general use. Anyone ap-
plying them is responsible for ensuring that they are used correctly in each
case.
This VDA publication takes into account state-of-the-art technology that is
current at the time of issue. Implementing the VDA recommendations does
not relieve anyone of responsibility for their own actions. In this respect,
everyone acts at their own risk. The VDA and those involved in the VDA
recommendation shall bear no liability.
If during use of the VDA recommendation, errors or the possibility of misin-

terpretation are found, it is requested that the VDA are notified of this im-
mediately so that any possible errors can be corrected.
Copyright
This publication including all its parts is protected by copyright. Any use
outside of the strict limits of copyright law is not permissible without the
consent of the VDA and is liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to
copying, translation, microfilming, and storing or processing in electronic
systems.
Translations
This publication will also be issued in other languages. The current status
must be requested from VDA QMC.

VDA-QMC Internetportal am 18.01.2018 um 07:12 3

We thank the organizations involved and their employees for their contribu-
tions to the preparation of this publication. The following companies have
been involved in creating this publication:
Adam Opel AG
Audi AG
BIA Kunststoff- und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG
BMW AG
Continental AG
Daimler AG
Demmel AG
Erbslöh Aktiengesellschaft
FORD Werke
FORD Werke, Aachen Research Center
Gerhardi Kunststofftechnik GmbH
Gerhardi Alutechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Heinze Gruppe GmbH
Dr. Hesse GmbH & CIE KG
Hillebrand Erbslöh Oberflächen GmbH
IBB International
Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG
Linden GmbH
Magna Exteriors GmbH
MAN Truck & Bus AG
Novem Car Interior Design GmbH
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
REHAU AG + Co
SAXONIA Galvanik GmbH
TECLAC Werner GmbH
TSG Troeger Surface Group OHG
Webasto Roof & Components SE
Wiegand GmbH
We also thank all those who have provided suggestions for the preparation
and for improvements.
Berlin, August 2016

VERBAND DER AUTOMOBILINDUSTRIE e. V. (VDA)

4 VDA-QMC Internetportal am 18.01.2018 um 07:12

Contents
Foreword 8
1 Introduction 9
2 Scope 10
3 Area of application 11
4 Evaluation zones 14
5 Evaluation conditions 15
5.1 Position 15
5.2 Lighting conditions 15
5.2.1 Brightness and color temperature exterior/interior 15
5.2.2 Lighting angle 17
5.2.3 Orientation of the light source 17
5.2.4. Observation distance 17
5.3 Observation period 17
5.4. Light booths for evaluation of color shades and testing of
automobile components 18
5.4.1. Definition of light types (light booths) 18
5.4.2. Applications of light types 18
5.4.3. Lighting intensity 19
5.4.4. Background texture 19
5.4.4.1. Selection matrix for booth color & light distribution, by application 20
5.4.4.2. Selection matrix for recommended light sources, by application
(examples) 20
5.4.5. Ambient conditions 20
5.4.6. Recommended clothing 21
5.5. Vehicle inspection 21


5.5.1 Size and equipment of the light studio 21
5.5.2 Light types 21
5.5.3 Background colors 22
5.6 Outdoor inspections 22
5.6.1 Inspection of single parts 22
5.6.2 Harmony inspection of a vehicle 22
5.6.3 Additional inspections 23
5.6.3.1 Gloss level 23
5.6.3.2 Surface structure of paint (orange peel) 23
5.7 Target agreements 24
5.7.1 PPM and scope of validity 24
5.7.2. Quality level 24
5.7.3 Determination of quality level 25
5.7.4 Special ppm agreements 25
5.8 Ensuring comparability of inspector and testing specification -
Reconciliation of evaluation standard 25
5.8.1. Method of creating an attributive MSA 26
5.8.2. Pragmatic implementation of the R&R Study (example) 29
5.8.3. Pragmatic implementation for qualification of color vision 30
5.9 Ensuring the sufficient required vision acuity for performing surface
visual inspections 31
5.10 Handling of samples of maximum tolerable processing conditions
(MTP samples) 32
6 Defining characteristic/addressing defects 35
7 Acceptance criteria 42
7.1 Acceptable characteristics 42
7.2 Quantifiable characteristics 42
7.2.1 Classification 42
7.2.2 Permitted density/frequency 42


8 Evaluation method 43
9 Miscellaneous 44
10 Appendix 45
10.1 Table of examples for tolerable characteristic attributes 45
10.2 Table of examples for quantifiable characteristics acc. to
Table 10.1 54
10.2.1 Example of classification by size and permissible frequency 54
10.2.2 Example of classification by minimum distance between
individual defects 54
10.3 Table of examples for practice-orientated observation times 55
10.4 Example of a ppm calculation with consideration of
outgoing quality 56
10.5 Formulation aids for quality agreements regarding appearance-
dependent surface characteristics 57
10.6 Example of PPM Customer Agreement for supply of products with
appearance-dependent characteristic attributes 64
10.7 Best-practice examples for design of testing stations for surface
inspection of appearance-dependent attributes 65
10.8 Best-practice examples for design of light cabinets for color and
surface evaluation of appearance-dependent attributes for
different applications 69
10.9 Best-practice examples for new inspection lamps on optimized
LED-basis with diffusing panel for high-gloss surfaces 74
10.10 Image catalog for addressing cahracteristics 75
10.11 Best-practice examples for test templates for evaluation of
measurable characteristic levels 76
10.12 Characteristic Gage R&R Effectiveness/Characteristic MSA 77
11 References 78
12 Sources 79


Foreword
We would like to emphasize that this VDA publication does not constitute
a new surface specification for appearance-dependent surface parts.
This VDA publication is rather intended as a communication instrument to

support the crucial exchange between suppliers and customers in the
manifold supply relations within the various automotive-supply chains with
regard to the need to clearly define the characteristic attributes for all ap-
pearance-dependent surface characteristics.
Its purpose is, in the absence of clear specifications for the tolerated de-
gree of surface-relevant characteristics for any product category, in or on
the automobile, to initiate communication between OEM and supplier. To
achieve 100%-quality or zero-defect supplier performance and a corre-
sponding evaluation in the product audit or product approval procedure, it is
crucially important to specify all relevant decorative surface characteristics
in a reproducible and, to the extent possible, quantifiable manner. This
serves to create clarity in the basic conditions both for customers and sup-
pliers with regard to the quality that is to be expected/implemented.
VDA Publication 16 is also intended to alert to the existence of defect slip-

through rates due to physiological causes, particularly for surface inspec-
tions that can only be performed at a human-visual level.


1 Introduction
This VDA publication serves as a basis for bilateral coordination and nego-
tiations between OEM and supplier or between customer and supplier in
the entire supply chain for the determination of appearance-dependent
characteristic attributes for decorative surfaces. The results shall be docu-
mented by individual contract.
The publication also serves the purpose of a clear description of decorative

product surfaces (so-called “appearance-dependent surfaces”) and of the
specification of uniform testing conditions to prevent process disruptions
with customers and suppliers due to “vague” or missing standards.
The publication also highlights the need for clear, linguistically coordinated
characteristic definitions to enable all partners in a supply network to speak
the same language with regard to the approach to characteristics and de-
fects. This is particularly important with regard to computer-aided systems
for quality data collection and complaints processing (CAQ systems).
For the parties involved in the process, this VDA publication serves as a
training guide to ensure the conformity of applications to agreed refer-
ences.
In order to prevent costs and quality problems caused after SOP by a

delayed surface specification, the technically achievable characteristic
attributes of required decorative surfaces should be introduced as early as
possible in the context of project management as part of the feasibility
analysis, and should be specified in coordination with the customer in the
context of advance quality planning.


2 Scope
This VDA publication applies to all decorative surfaces of accessories and

functional parts in the exterior and interior areas of automobiles.
This area is defined as the visible vehicle area that can be viewed in stand-
ing or sitting position during normal vehicle use.
This VDA publication can be used for inspections accompanying series pro-
duction, for outgoing and incoming goods inspections, for surface evaluation
during product audits and during production process and product approval pro-
cedures.


3 Area of application
Generally, the information in this VDA Volume 16 is applicable for all deco-
rative, appearance-dependent surfaces.
The following list is only an overview for better classification of the product
types that are primarily considered in the Working Group, and is not a crite-
rion for excluding products that are not explicitly mentioned:
# Decorative moldings (e. g. handle strips, shaft covers, frames, ram

protection and side protection strips, radiator grills, decorative
grills)
# Panels (incl. mirrors)
# Covers
# Operating elements (e. g. buttons, levers, switches, door handles,
air inlet nozzles)
# Roof moldings
# Luggage carrier systems (roof and tailgate)
# Emblems/lettering/plaques
# Mirror caps
# Fuel filler flaps
# Wood paneling and trims
# Bumpers/grill/fenders
# Truck steps/roof spoilers
# Panoramic roofs
# PC panels
# Borders
# Steering wheel spokes
# Sill trims
# Film surfaces (films applied directly to vehicle body)
# Surface parts made of fiber composites
# Blinds/shutters
# Headlights/rear lights
# Door sill trims (illuminated/non-illuminated)


# Glass/silk screening
# Parts illuminated from within (tailgates, license plates, etc.)
# Carpets
# Seat covers made of fabric, leather, etc.
# Roof liner
# Ambient lighting
# Flocked parts
# Alloy wheels
The consideration includes components and surface-relevant completions.

The material-specific levels for visible areas are only being considered in
this VDA publication to the extent that they do not exclude or contradict
standards typical for the industry.
With regard to the type of surface, this VDA publication takes the following
production processes into account:
# Anodizing
# Powder coating (EPS)
# Wet coating Extruding
# Plastic injection molding
# Galvanizing
# Plasma processes (vapor-depositing/sputtering/CVD/PVD)
# Application processes (bonding/embossing of decorative films)
# Pressure die casting
# Mechanical processing (e. g. grinding/polishing/deburring/
drilling/milling/joining)
# Laser lettering
# Fiber composite technology (CFK)
# Leather cladding
# Inmolded color/colored injection molding
# Printed surfaces
# Ceran coating for anodized aluminum (new defect characteris-
tics/different effects on the surface)


# Caulking (cold), welding (hot)
# Weaving/textile
# SMC, partly in connection with IMC (for trucks)
# Hand laminate (for trucks)
# Silk screening on glass surfaces
# Galvanized multi-component parts
# Carpet processing, e. g. deep-drawing, etc.
# Flocking
# Stainless steel surface processing
Across products and processes, this VDA publication also takes into ac-
count basic aspects regarding color evaluation/color metrics of appear-
ance-dependent accessories. With regard to aspects of pure evalua-
tion/color metrics of painted accessories, please refer to existing specifica-
tions by OEMs and various associations or international standards.
With regard to color evaluation, the required matching of samples for max-
imum tolerable processing conditions (MTP samples), adequate light selec-
tion, and configuration of testing stations are being considered.


4 Evaluation zones
Evaluation zones must be specified in the parts drawing or in the data

model.
It is also recommended to create MTP zone samples, in which the relevant

evaluation zones are marked directly on the respective part clearly and
permanently, particularly also the areas that are covered or not visible in
the installation position.
The following table shows a possible part-specific zone division regarding

defect gravity/defect weighting.
ZONE DEFINITION ALLOCATION
A Surfaces in immediate Exterior:

visible area Vehicle above observer’s waistline, sup-
plemented where appropriate by a spe-
cific allocation.
Interior:
All parts within direct field of vision of ve-
hicle occupants.
B Surfaces in obstructed vision, or Exterior:

not visible in normal position; Vehicle below observer’s waistline until
viewing sector < 45 o above bumper level, or function elements
(opened hatches, doors, etc.)
Interior:
All surfaces outside of immediate percep-
tion
Optional: Surfaces that are concealed after No surface relevance

C assembly
Optional: Surfaces that are not relevant with

D regard to surface coating, but for
which certain surface attribute
levels are not permitted due to
their function
For concealed surfaces, the functionality must always be ensured.


5 Evaluation conditions
5.1 Position
The evaluation of decorative parts must be performed according to their

angle of installation and their position at the vehicle or their functional posi-
tion, normally toward the main surface of the part, and generally without us-
ing deflectometry control.
5.2 Lighting conditions

5.2.1 Brightness and color temperature exterior/interior
For the evaluation of characteristic attributes at the respective testing sta-

tions, daylight (northern sky) or an equivalent source of artificial light should
be used. For the sake of reproducibility of the evaluation in the event of
disputes, artificial light with the following specifications is to be preferred:
# Lighting intensity 1000 Lux at the test object
# For the evaluation of characteristic attributes, lamp type 865 and

840 should be used;
# for color evaluation types 965 and 940 should also be preferred
(see also the recommendations by VDA Color Metrics Working
Group)
Lamp type: Color temperature: Color rendering index Ra:

865 Daylight white (Cool 6500 K 85
Daylight)
840 Neutral white 4000 K 85
(Cool White)
965 Daylight white (Cool 6500 K 93
Daylight)
940 Neutral white 3800 K 92
(Cool White)
Term definition:
Color rendering index Ra
(term in photometry)


Photometry is a method to describe the influence of a light source on the
color effect of objects, compared to a reference light source of the same
color temperature. The color rendering index serves as a quality attribute
between light sources of the same color (metamer). The highest attainable
value is 100 Ra. Common cool-white fluorescent lamps have a value of 62
Ra; fluorescent lamps with special phosphorous mixtures can achieve val-
ues of 80 Ra or more.
In daylight planning, the color rendering index defines the spectral trans-
mission behavior of glasses or other transparent materials. In this context,
values of 95 Ra or higher are deemed acceptable.
The General color rendering index Ra is a measure of the average color

effect of 8 standardized color samples. These samples were specified as a
representative selection of colors from the color wheel with
medium saturation. Unless a color rendering index is not specified other-
wise, the general color rendering index is assumed.
Note:
It should be observed that certain characteristic attributes cannot be de-
tected under artificial light or, conversely, under daylight (see table in
Chap. 6). For such cases, separate specifications need to be defined as
binding.
The evaluation of parts must be performed without optical aids (e. g. mirror,
lamp, magnifying glass, etc.).
During the inspection of parts, it is to be ensured that incorrect interpreta-

tions of characteristic attributes due to stray light/increased incidence of
sunlight, etc. are avoided. Unfavorable lighting circumstances might lead to
incorrect interpretations/failure to detect characteristic attributes.


5.2.2 Lighting angle
In the event of a dispute and use of fluorescent tubes, the tubes are to be
aligned parallel to the longitudinal vehicle axis.
5.2.3 Orientation of the light source
In the design of a testing station or for an inspection at the place of manu-

facture, the artificial light source should be arranged at a vertical distance
of approx. 120 cm above the test object.
5.2.4. Observation distance
For parts evaluation without optical aids, a distance from the inspector to
the test object of approx. 50-70 cm (stretched arm) should normally be
maintained.
5.3 Observation period
For the evaluation of the quality level, zone-related observation times

should be applied.
The dependency from the surface must not be linear. In application, the
formula 20 sec surface _ in _ dm 2 has been shown to be practical. The sur-
face used in the equation is not the coated surface but the A and B surface
to be inspected. Gaps, windows, etc. must not be subtracted from the sur-
face.
In the specification for a concrete range of parts, it makes sense to agree

on a surface-related observation time in seconds.
For examples of practice-orientated observation times, see Chapter 10.3 in

the Appendix.


5.4. Light booths for evaluation of color shades and
testing of automobile components
Generally, care should be taken to use a system that is as far as possible

technically equivalent to the system used by the customer. In any case, this
should be coordinated beforehand with the customer. This applies in par-
ticular to background color, geometry (distance/arrangement/angle) of the
light source arrangement, testing station and object, and the light types to
be applied.
The following overview is intended to provide the user with a general pro-
cedure in order to make a practical selection for the respective application.
5.4.1. Definition of light types (light booths)
a) D65 – Daylight with 6500 K color temperature - standard light type

b) Cool White/F2 – with 4230 K color temperature
c) TL 84/F11 – Shopping center light with 4100 K /4000 K color temperature
d) A – Incandescent lamp light with 2856 K color temperature
e) Horizon – Evening light with 2300 K color temperature
f) 1.6 UV – Ultraviolet light
5.4.2. Applications of light types
In practice, both for color shade evaluation and many types of

surface inspections, the light type D65, or daylight simulation, has estab-
lished itself.
a) For exterior/paint inspections, this is the standard light type.

b) For metameric inspections, additional appropriate light types should be
used.
c) Interior inspections of plastics, textiles, leather and other materials
especially require additional light types. Besides D65, particularly for
textiles, the light type TL84 is standard in the automotive industry.


However, this requires additional light sources for a correct evaluation
of the behavior of materials.
d) The inspection of chromium, galvanized and glass components is a
special case because here the arrangements of lamps and reference
areas to be reflected have a higher priority than the actual light type.
5.4.3. Lighting intensity
Generally, a lighting of the object with approx. 1000 lx is required.

Depending on background color, surroundings and type of test, a different
brightness can be selected (800 – 1200 lx). The user should also be taken
into consideration. This applies particularly to surface inspections. Here,
lower light intensities can be appropriate.
5.4.4. Background texture
The background color should be selected according to customer specifica-

tion. A reflection of the background texture should be avoided, and the
background should therefore be matte.
In practice, the following backgrounds have proved useful:

a) Deep black (RAL 9005), alternatively, medium gray (e. g. iron gray RAL
7011), for color evaluation of high-gloss paints
b) Light gray (RAL 7035) for color evaluation of textiles, leather and
plastics
c) Black/white with lines for inspection of glass and chromed surfaces, and
for general surface checks


5.4.4.1. Selection matrix for booth color & light distribution,
by application
Exterior / high gloss Interior / textile, Chromium /

etc. galvanized /
glass
Black, matte Yes Yes Yes
Light gray, matte Restricted, light col- Yes No
ors
Black/white with Only surface inspec- No Yes
lines tions
Directional light Yes Yes Yes
source
Diffuse light source Yes Yes No
5.4.4.2. Selection matrix for recommended light sources,

by application (examples)
direc- D65 other LS Exterior Interior

tional
X-Rite Spectralight No Yes 2856 – 6500 K Yes Yes
Oligo Color Control No Yes 2800 – 6500 K Yes Yes
Hanau Atlas No Yes No Yes No
Heraeus Variolux No Yes 2800 – 6500 K Yes Yes
Willing Studio Yes Yes No Yes No
5.4.5. Ambient conditions
During inspection, any disturbing influences should generally be avoided.

This might include the following factors:
- Extraneous light, particularly of a different light type (e. g. office light)
- Foreign objects (e. g. deposited samples, documents, colored file
- covers)
- Clothing (esp. in bright, polarizing or reflective colors)
- Office equipment


It is therefore appropriate to darken the testing room outside the standard-
ized illuminated testing surface, or to partition it off. See Section 4.1-4.3.
5.4.6. Recommended clothing
Clothing should generally be in a single achromatic color. Preferable colors

are gray or white. In case of black clothing, attention should be paid to pos-
sible hues/color casts, which might lead to exclusion.
5.5. Vehicle inspection
For the inspection of assembled vehicles and their harmony, a design analog
to single-part test cabinets should be chosen, referred to as ‘light studio’
below.
5.5.1 Size and equipment of the light studio
The size of the light studio should be chosen according to the maximum
vehicle size, or local conditions. Care should be taken to provide sufficient
space around the vehicle for those present, additional mobile lighting,
opened doors, etc. It is to be ensured that the required brightness at the
vehicle is achieved.
Ideally all 4 walls around the vehicle and the roof are equipped with lamps.
The vehicle access is designed with movable segments.
As an alternative, L-shaped or U-shaped systems can be selected. The ve-
hicle should be positioned according to the side to be inspected.
5.5.2 Light types
The light type D65 is obligatory for the specification of a light studio. It is
recommended, however, in analogy to the above-mentioned testing booths,
to plan for additional light types to simulate different times of day/light tem-
peratures, and for metameric inspections.
It should also be ensured that effects such as glitter (sparkle) and pearls
can be reproduced. Depending on the concept, this may require additional
lighting.


5.5.3 Background colors
The light studio should be protected from extraneous light, in analogy to

light booths. To prevent reflections, avoid using glossy surfaces and bod-
ies, and paint these in matte. Preferred colors to choose are gray shades
(iron gray or light gray).
5.6 Outdoor inspections
In addition, or alternatively to the inspection in the light studio, an outdoor

color/harmony inspection should be performed in order to verify the previ-
ous results under normal conditions.
The evaluation should be performed between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. In
case of a potential “standardization”, an evaluation at 11:00 a.m. in a
northern direction has proved to be useful.
In any case, the inspector has to include the time and weather conditions
with his records in order to allow conclusions at later comparative inspec-
tions.
5.6.1 Inspection of single parts
The part has to be compared with the master sample under different angles
of observation.
A distinction is made between the gloss angle, the top view and the view
from an angle (flop).
The part should be aligned in installation position, and the master sample in
vertical position (simulation of side of vehicle). Care should be taken that
the master sample lies flat on the testing surface, or rests against it. An an-
gular offset must be avoided.
5.6.2 Harmony inspection of a vehicle

After appropriate alignment, the vehicle should be evaluated in its overall
harmony at an angle of 90° against the light incidence. For this purpose,
the vehicle is inspected from different angles of observation.


If no deviation is detected between the vehicle body and the individual
components, the inspection should be terminated. In the event of devia-
tions, a comparison is made with the master sample in order to determine
which component is in deviation and needs to be corrected. The detailed
analysis is performed in analogy to the inspection in the light cabinet or in
the light studio.
5.6.3 Additional inspections
In addition to the above mentioned inspections of color, glitter (sparkle) and

graininess and their harmony, additional inspections of surface quality need
to be performed.
5.6.3.1 Gloss level
For high-gloss surfaces, use a measuring geometry of 20°, for medium-

gloss surfaces, of 60°, and for matte surfaces, of 85°. Select the device ac-
cording to customer specification.
5.6.3.2 Surface structure of paint (orange peel)
For the surface structure, a distinction is required between long-waviness

and short-waviness. The inspection can be performed as follows:
a.) Metrologically, with a measuring device specified by the customer.
For evaluation, the specifications received from the customer need
to be taken into account because both the values and their analysis
may differ significantly. In addition to long-waviness and short-
waviness, combined values (so-called ratings) may also be re-
quested.
b.) Visually by means of so-called orange-peel panels. These surface

structure tables are defined by a grading of 1-10, and are specified
by the customer according to location and position at the vehicle.
For this purpose, the surfaces are reflected by mirroring at the
gloss angle and compared with the corresponding tables, and the
value is determined iteratively. The classification of this value is
approx. 0.5 units above the metrologically determined value.


5.7 Target agreements
5.7.1 PPM and scope of validity

With good delivery quality only few defects occur and these are measured
in ppm (parts per million). In such situations, it is useful to agree a zero-
defect target. In practice, it has proved beneficial to achieve this, if neces-
sary, via intermediate targets (such as e. g. “ramp-up curves”). In this case,
the following should be agreed upon between manufacturer and buyer:
! Defect percentage, e. g. in ppm.
! Scope of validity (characteristic, period such as including warranty
period, extra shipments, etc.).
5.7.2. Quality level

It is useful to point out in the agreements that other influencing factors such
as the human evaluation capability must be taken into account. The per-
ceptibility of structures and attribute levels during a visual inspection, and
thus the reliability of decisions made in the inspection, depends on the
physiological resolution capacity of the human eye and a wide range of
other parameters.
Preconditions for a positive, reproducible testing result are normal vision at

close range, good lighting conditions, and the absence of negative mental
factors. As a minimum precondition for inspection personnel of appear-
ance-dependent attributes, a periodic eye test for normal vision at close
range is recommended.
An assessment of appearance-dependent characteristics is therefore only

comparable under strictly defined conditions.
For the discrimination capacity (discrimination characteristics) by visual

quality inspection, it is therefore necessary to determine a convention as a
substitute value for the inevitable slip-through proportion PD. For the scope
of application of this VDA publication, this proportion has been determined
as


PD=0.003 equivalent to 0.3%.
For this proportion of the batch, a distinction between defective and defect-
free parts is not possible, or defective parts are being missed. (Missed
parts are parts with discernible deviations that exceed the specified toler-
ance by their magnitude.)
5.7.3 Determination of quality level
The reference value is the respective actual number of parts with devia-
tions in the batch. This value must be determined accordingly, and the PD
quota must be taken into account by both sides.
If the batch is evaluated on the basis of the number of defective units in the
sample, the confidence level (e. g. 95%) also must be taken into account.
The sample size n here is to be equated with the supplied quantity because
the defect percentages that are usually taken into account at the assembly
line take into account practically all the supplied parts.
5.7.4 Special ppm agreements
Specially agreed defect percentages may result in cost implications that

should be contractually regulated by individual supplementary provisions.
5.8 Ensuring comparability of inspector and testing

specification - Reconciliation of evaluation standard
QM-relevant guidelines call for periodic vision acuity exams for surface
characteristic inspectors. The performance of such a vision acuity exam
that is suitable for surface inspections on the one hand and the communi-
cation of the results to the employer on the other hand are problematic in
many countries due to medical confidentiality. In addition, in the context of
increased demands on optical characteristics, a reconciliation of evalua-
tions and evaluation standards is becoming more and more important both
for suppliers and customers.


The three methods described below can be used to ensure the comparabil-
ity of inspector and testing specification.
5.8.1. Method of creating an attributive MSA
The creation of a characteristic MSA, e. g. based on the MSA Manual by

th
AIAG, current 4 edition, or on the corresponding VDA standard volume 5,
is a method that can be used very successfully. The application of the MSA
method allows a systematic appraisal of evaluation capacity, both of the in-
dividual inspectors and between them. On the basis of these results, the
employer is able to initiate personnel-specific measures, irrespective of the
above-mentioned problematic situations.
In this context it is necessary to establish an objective basis for discussion

with regard to further action. The Attributive Gage R & R procedure is an-
other proven method. Attributive data consist of yes/no values. Gage R & R
stands for a measuring system analysis, where R = reproducibility (different
operators, one measuring device) and R = repeatability (one operator, one
device). In short, this is a type of knowledge test in order to ensure that the
decisions both of an individual inspector and those of several inspectors
between them are reproducible with regard to the customer standard in
particular. This method examines the main influencing factors that are rele-
vant for both the acceptance and the rejection of parts subject to visual
evaluation.
Such a study is set up as follows:
# First, a binding standard is agreed with the customer in the form of

reference parts that are numbered consecutively. These reference
parts include the entire decision range, i. e. flawless parts, border-
line parts, and clearly identifiable reject parts. In a table (Figure 1),
the part number and the evaluation are recorded, whereby atten-
tion must be taken that the inspectors to be evaluated later do not
receive this information in order not to distort the result.


SCORING REPORT
DATE: 4.1.2001
5
Attribute Legend (used in computations) NAME: Acme Employee
1 Pass PRODUCT: Widgets All operators
2 Fail BUSINESS: Earth Products agree within and All Operators
between each agree with
Other standard
Known Population Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 Y/N Y/N
Sample # Attribute Try #1 Try #2 Try #1 Try #2 Try #1 Try #2 Agree Agree
1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Y Y
4 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Pass N N
5 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Fail N N
6 Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Y N
9 Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Y Y
Figure 1: Attribute Gage R & R Effectiveness
# The inspectors are presented with these parts in random order, and
have to make a decision within the regular evaluation time. The re-
sult is then entered into the table. Two runs are performed with all
parts for each inspector.
# Afterwards the results can be evaluated by the respective criteria.

The criteria are:
! Degree of consistency of both evaluations by an inspector

! Degree of consistency of an inspector’s evaluations with the
standard
! Degree of consistency of inspectors between themselves
! Degree of consistency of inspectors between themselves and
with the standard


DATE: 4.1.2001
NAME: Acme Employee
PRODUCT: Widgets
BUSINESS: Earth Products
% Appraiser1 %Score vs Attribute2

Source Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Total Inspected 30 30 30 30 30 30
# Matched 30 30 25 28 29 24
False Negative (operator rejected good product) 1 0 0
False Positive (operator accepted bad product) 1 1 1
Mixed 0 0 5
95% UCL 100,0% 100,0% 94,4% 99,2% 99,9% 92,3%
Calculated Score 100,0% 100,0% 83,3% 93,3% 96,7% 80,0%
95% LCL 88,4% 88,4% 65,3% 77,9% 82,8% 61,4%
Screen % Effective Score3 Screen % Effective Score vs Attribute4

Total Inspected 30 30
# in Agreement 24 23
95% UCL 92,3% 90,1%
Calculated Score 80,0% 76,7%
95% LCL 61,4% 57,7%
% Appraiser 95% UCL % Score vs Appraiser 95% UCL

Calculated Score Calculated Score
110,0% 95% LCL 110,0% 95% LCL
100,0% 100,0%
90,0% 90,0%
80,0% 80,0%
70,0% 70,0%
% Efficiency
% Efficiency
60,0% 60,0%
50,0% 50,0%
40,0% 40,0%
30,0% 30,0%
20,0% 20,0%
10,0% 10,0%
0,0% 0,0%
Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3
Notes
(1) Operator agrees with him/herself on both trials
(2) Operator agrees on both trials with the known standard
(3) All operators agreed within and between themselves
(4) All operators agreed within & between themselves AND agreed with the known standard
Figure 2: Statistical Report – Attribute Gage R&R Study


What can be read from Figure 2?
The so-called “Calculate Score” indicates the mean consistency of inspec-

tors, which should be no less than 80%. The “Score versus Appraiser” indi-
cates how consistent the individual inspector is with regard to his decisions.
The following actions can be derived from these statistics:
# If the inspectors are able to identify the standard with a minimum

80% consistency, the boundary samples are considered as estab-
lished. If the standard is below 80%, it is necessary to look for ways
in coordination with the customer (e. g. lowering of demands) in or-
der to identify the attributes correctly.
# If an inspector has the problem of his decisions lacking reproduci-

bility, he should be trained according to the procedure of the other
inspectors until he has again achieved 80% consistency with the
customer standard.
Two examples of such an evaluation file for performing an Attribute Gage

R&R Study or MSA are available by free download. For access data see
Chapter 10.10
5.8.2. Pragmatic implementation of the R&R Study (example)
A certain number of parts (minimum 10 parts), including both parts with var-
ious identical defect attributes and OK parts, are presented to staff for in-
spection – at the beginning of testing activities that involve surface evalua-
tion (e. g. when first starting work due to e. g. new hire, new appointment)
and regularly afterwards (e. g. minimum once a year, or following inci-
dents). The inspectors then have to evaluate the parts according to their
skill training (by OK, or NOK with defect characteristic).
Results are classified by traffic light colors (or alternatively by grades):
- approval: green (grade A/B)

- approval with restriction: yellow (grade C) - special attention by
QA for a defined period


- Non-approval: red (grade D or below) - Special measures are to be im-
plemented, e. g. targeted training with new inspection, consulting an eye
specialist, renewed eye test, discussion with employee, change of work
place.
5.8.3. Pragmatic implementation for qualification of color

vision
Another option is a test for accurate quantification of color vision (color

blindness), e. g. the 100-color test. This color vision test (also known as the
Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Color Vision Test) contains four distinct rows
of similar color hues, each containing 21 or 22 distinct variations of each
hue. In each row, the employee has to arrange the individual hues in what
he perceives to be the correct sequence. The correct arrangement of the
hues is evidence of the capacity of color vision. The correct allocation of
the hues can also be rated by a traffic light system. Two results can be
derived from this test:
a) the number of instances of hue deviations, and
b) the severity of a hue displacement, i. e. the distance between where a
hue should have been placed and where it was actually placed.
Another addition is the Velhagen-Broschmann test to determine a color

perception deficiency (red-green blindness).


5.9 Ensuring the sufficient required vision acuity for
performing surface visual inspections
For the performance of periodic eye exams as required e. g. in accordance

with ISO/TS 16949, it is important to ensure that a standard for eye exams
is applied that is suitable for employees carrying out visual surface inspec-
tions. An eye exam for e. g. a driver license test is unsuitable for this pur-
pose, since its focus is on farsightedness.
It is a precondition for ensuring the adequate vision acuity and color vision
ability of surface inspection personnel that the staff members take part in
an eye exam designed for surface inspections (in accordance with DIN EN
ISO 8596). This must be carried out at intervals specified by the respective
organization and relate to the surface complexity to be tested (e. g. recur-
ring every 3 years up to an age of e. g. 45 years) and every year (from e. g.
46 years upward). This eye exam must be performed by a specialist with
appropriate test equipment. The eye exam includes a vision acuity exam
for close range, and a color discrimination exam. For all inspectors, the


minimum requirement is vision acuity of 0.8 on the decimal scale for close
range on the eye with better vision. The minimum value must be achieved
either without or with visual aids (glasses/contact lenses).
Insufficient vision
If the vision of a staff member entrusted with visual inspections is not suffi-
cient, he or she should consult an eye specialist. If the lack of vision cannot
be corrected, the staff member, in coordination between the departments,
human resources and works council, should be offered, if possible, an
equivalent activity with lower demands on vision acuity, or not involving
visual inspections.
5.10 Handling of samples of maximum tolerable pro-

cessing conditions (MTP samples)
In consideration of the process principle it is evident that all characteristics of

surfaces can be interpreted as the result of a process. With regard to the
marginal condition of a characteristic attribute defined by the customer as
“only just OK”, it is consequently necessary to define these maximum toler-
able processing conditions as the upper or lower acceptable tolerance limit
for the decorative appearance-dependent characteristic attribute.
The quality level agreed with the customer with regard to tolerable charac-
teristic attributes is defined for non-measurable characteristics (appear-
ance-dependent attributes) by means of samples that represent the Maxi-
mum Tolerable Processing conditions. These MTP samples define the
quality limit level agreed with the customer (corresponding to the upper or
lower tolerance limit for measurable characteristics) and thus reflect the
normal distribution of characteristic attributes within an industrial series
production process.
Boundary samples in the sense of this definition are therefore sample parts
that define tolerance limit extensions, in most cases fixed temporarily, that
exceed the upper or lower tolerance limits. They represent the range of
characteristic attributes that can only just be accepted in the borderline ar-
ea without having a negative impact on the end customer.


Generally, for the supply of appearance-dependent, decorative surface
parts it should be an objective in all phases of the product supply (proto-
types/pilot series/series/spare parts) to agree bilaterally with the respective
customer, as early as possible, on valid MTP samples for each required
characteristic attribute to be specified, in a way that is binding for all part-
ners involved in the process in the entire supply chain.
The customer approval can be documented by the customer’s signature

directly on the part, or can be recorded during the boundary sample coordi-
nation process with reference to the MTP sample or boundary sample, or
can be identified by an internal signature after verbal coordination with the
customer partner (with reference to minutes of meeting with customer incl.
date of agreement).
All MTP samples and boundary samples that have been included in the
production control plan should also be subject to test equipment monitor-
ing, so that their location of use/storage and validity period can always be
traced. This ensures periodic verification that they remain in good condition
and are usable as well as correspond to the current quality level.
Only then can they serve as a reproducible contractual basis.
In addition, both MTP and boundary samples can be used for training pur-
poses, or can be duplicated for workplaces as illustrative samples (based
on the official boundary samples or MTP samples).
Any deviation from these contractually defined surface specifications must

be documented in the form of temporarily limited special approvals in
accordance with currently valid customer specifications with reference to
the QM system.
MTP samples should - wherever possible - be specified or agreed upon as

early as possible in a project phase. For a start, samples of characteristic
attributes from comparable process steps of similar parts geometries can
be used as an initial basis, and must then be replaced, with increasing
characteristic availability, from the original process.


Within a multistage supply chain it may be necessary, for the purpose of
clearly defined quality positions in the respective customer-supplier rela-
tionships, to agree on the MTP samples in classes and by stages. Here it is
firstly important that the original customer provides clear specifications for
the acceptable OK characteristic attributes for the surface process to be
supplied. These specifications must then be duplicated consistently
throughout the entire supply chain, and must also be agreed upon in a
binding way.
A classification of the MTP samples can be useful:
# MTP samples Class C: Agreed by the direct buyer with the original
surface process supplier.
# MTP samples Class B: Agreed by the supplier of the surface part
with the n-tier in the supply chain.
# MTP samples Class A: Agreed by the n-tier with the OEM.
Ideally, Class A MTP samples are most advantageous for the entire supply
chain because here the quality level of appearance-dependent characteris-
tic attributes to be supplied to the OEM is decidedly clear for the entire
supply chain. In the event that Class A MTP samples cannot be agreed
upon for a variety of reasons, at least Class B MTP samples should be
obtained for the original surface process supplier (coordination with the
n-tiers of the supply chain), whereas Class C MTP samples (from the
immediate buyer) are of absolute importance for an orderly and controlled
production process. Care should be taken not to intensify the agreed char-
acteristics in the course of the supply chain.


6 Defining characteristic/addressing defects
No. Characteristic Process Definition:

type: *)
allocation :
1 Offset 5, 8, 12,13,15 Offset due to joining of parts (e. g. by vulcaniza-

tion or injection molding).
2 Burn marks 1, 6 Dull-crumbly surface structure

due to dendritic depositions in the limit current
area (in pronounced form, called buds)
3 Bumps/dents 6, 8 – 16 Indentation of an area, caused by strong pres-

sure.
4.a Bubbles 2, 3, 6, 7, 13 a) mostly round, uniform elevations
(hollow inside)
4.b Pitting 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, b) mostly circular, crater-like depressions in
18 the topcoat or precoats. The raised edges
are typical.
5 Impression 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, Slight depressions, randomly distributed over
marks 13, 16 the surface, or in a closely confined area, due to
impressed foreign particles.
6 Anodizing splits 1, 23 Micro-fissures; small linear structures in the an-
odized layer, caused by excessive local defor-
mation of the part, or excessive layer thickness
built up during anodizing.
7 Color misting 3, 13 Paint droplets finely sprayed on the surface, not
homogeneously embedded in the paint film or
distributed across the paint film.
8 Color differences 2, 3, 6, 13, 23 Color difference of a surface compared to ad-
joining surface or reference sample. Causes are
e. g.:
a) due to material,
b) due to process,
c) sensory perception: Saturation, brightness,
purity, glossiness, depth and
surface structure.
9 Swollen edges 2, 3, 6, 13, 23 Accumulation of paint layers (bulge formation)

on part edges, caused e. g. by surface tension.
The effect is primarily correlated to the edge ra-
dius or with the position of the part in the pro-
cess.
10 Flecks 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, Locally sharply demarcated cloudiness of sur-
13, 23 face (e. g. soiling/corrosion (point-shaped or
nest-shaped), drying stains).


type: *)
allocation :
11 Flash on tool 5, 6, 13 Flash/burr that may be caused by inaccurate fit

split line of mold halves or slides (e. g. sprue residues on
injection-molded parts), sometimes also by
wear, overflow.
12 Differences in 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, Sheen level deviating from (original) sample or

sheen 23 specified value on partial or complete areas.
13 Flash/burr 2, 3, 5, 8, 15 Sharp-edged structure of edge zones from ear-
lier process (e. g. punch burr at cut edge, paint
burr).
14 Grittiness 1, 3, 6 Visually perceived optical effect that may result
from diffuse reflection on microstructure phases
(e. g. etched grain boundaries).
15 Hairline splits 3, 6, 10, 13 Linear damages of finest structure.
16 Contact or grip- 1, 2, 6, 7 Small-sized, plane coating defect, mostly point-

ping point (due shaped (in non-visible area), caused by sus-
to process) pension clamps/contacting at rack/part carrier).
17 Scratches, 5, 6, 8, 10, Linear damages by incorrect handling (e. g. by

grooves 13, 16, 18 demolding).
18 Paint runs 2, 3, 13, 18, 23 Traces of paint running off in the topcoat or in a
precoat on vertical surfaces (mostly around
beadings, curvatures, folds or cut-outs).
19 Lens-shaped 2, 3, 13, 23 Optical distortion/progression defect of paint
paint marks surface that is not detectable by touch; running
paint in its initial stadium.
20 Thin coating ar- 2, 3, 7, 13, 23 Too little coating applied (substrate shining
eas through).
21 Macro-splitting 1, 6 Fissures in galvanized layer due to
deformation or tensions in the part.
22 Pinholes 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, Finest craters (see Pos. 4b), also micro-pores.
18 With CFK in gel coat
23 Nickel patches 6 Yellowish spots in contact area and in

the area of low current density.


type: *)
allocation :
24 Orange peel ef- 2, 3, 6, 13, 18, Rough or wavy appearance of a painted sur-
fect 23 face, which may include a texture; grained paint
surface with a structure resembling orange peel.
25 Oxide lines 11 Designation: Stripes caused by oxide inclusions
(oxide inclusions, oxide lines).
Description and effects: Lines resembling pencil
strokes (white to gray) in molding direction or
rolling direction, more or less pronounced de-
pending on type and quantity of trapped oxides.
26 Pimples/ 1 – 7, 15, 23 Impurities trapped in the surface such as dust or

inclusions fluff, partly protruding from the coating, or
growth impairment in the layer buildup.
27 Pigmentation de- 2, 3 Disorientation of pigments such as e. g.
fect metal flakes.
28 Various polishing 6, 9, 13, 16 Collective category for low defect percentages,

defects or rare types of defects.
28.a Polygonal stain areas by abrasion residues be-

Stippling ing polished in.
28.b Resulting after electrolytic polishing by exces-

Dull areas sive local heating; “no base polishing”, i. e. sur-
face not fully polished).
28.c Holograms Polishing defects with three-dimensional effect

(esp. with dark colors).
28.d Polishing flecks Approximately circular areas with significantly

smoother surface than surroundings
29 Polishing fishes 6, 9, 11, 13 “Fish-like” depression caused by polishing due

(comet tails) to a foreign particle, a pore, or other precondi-
tioning from previous processes (e. g. grinding).
30 Polishing streaks 6, 9, 13, 16 Finest local accumulation of visible grooves,
caused by polishing treatment
(unfavorable selection of polishing paste
and/or polishing disk).
31 Pores 2, 3, 6, 13, 15 Small holes in the coating surface, visible to the
naked eye.


type: *)
allocation :
32 Indications of 4, 8 Description: Visible longitudinal mold seam (vis-

seams/seam ible extrusion seam, visible welding zone).
welds Description and effect: (Narrow) stripes in direc-
tion of extrusion, brighter or darker than the rest
of the material, depending on lighting condi-
tions. May occur in connection with cham-
ber/web imprints. Visible longitudinal mold
seams are process-related and unavoidable,
but their extent can be influenced.
33 Scour marks 6, 10, 13, 15 Local roughening of the surface, mostly obvious
by differences in gloss.
34 Web imprints 6, 4, 8, 15 Stripes running parallel to the direction of extru-
sion across the length of the profile, usually lo-
cated above webs that become particularly ap-
parent after coating processes.
35 Striations 8, 11 Liquation streaks; electro-potentiostatic
effect, caused during pretreatment for anodiza-
tion due to liquation in primary material.
36 Graininess 6 Slightly scarred appearance of a galvanized

surface; comparable to the orange-peel attribute
on painted surfaces.
37 Corrugations 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, Wave-shaped, parallel markings on the sheet
16 metal or profile surface, transversely to the di-
rection of rolling or extrusion, that are visible in
special observation positions (e. g. rear mirror
view, deflectometry control in longitudinal direc-
tion under a very narrow viewing angle).
38a Cloudiness/ 9, 13, 23 In polishing: local matte or dull cloud-shaped or
fogging/streaks stripe-shaped areas with diffuse transitions.
In painting: obvious partial light/
3 dark areas within a (metallic-effect)
paint, with diffuse transitions
Dull areas within the overall surface, with diffuse
6, 7, 13 transitions
In plastic injection: caused by humidity in the
38b Streaks caused 9, 12 plastic material, or by trapped air during injec-
by moisture/air tion molding.
39 Differences in 2, 3, 6, 23 In galvanizing, resulting from unfavorable cur-
coating thickness rent density distribution (6) or in other process-
es from varying particle flows / angles of inci-
dence or depositing conditions.
40 Sink marks 6, 12, 13, 15, Visible surface depressions, caused by ele-


type: *)
allocation :
18 ments located behind, such as webs, ribs and

domes (6).
Recessed areas on the part, caused by incor-
rect part geometry or insufficient shrinkage
compensation (12).
41 Converging 6, 13, 15 Scratch-like, visible flow marks on plastic parts,

seams where the flowing fronts meet.
42 Sucker marks 3, 6, 12, 15, 16 Resulting from contact of the surface with rub-
ber suckers; visible mark on the surface,
caused by deposits from the sucker during
demolding/removal of the part.
43 Seam welds 12, 13, 15 Resulting from two mass flows flowing together
behind cut-outs and mandrels (convergence
line)
44 Moisture inclu- 2, 5, 12, 13 In plastic injection: caused by humid material

sion/air inclusion due to incorrect material preparation, or by air
inclusions during injection molding. Expanding
humidity or air forms bubbles / pimples on the
processed part surface; humidity inclusions may
be visible in the form of streaks on the unpro-
cessed part.
45 Holes 6 Holes in the coating surface that go down to the
base material, visible to the naked eye.
46a Alignment gap 13 Caused by incorrect joining of the face veneer /
visible streak or line.
46b Alignment offset 13 Caused by incorrect joining of the face veneer /

offset structural symmetry.
47 Patch marks 13 Due to missing pieces, holes, cracks.
48 Jagged knife 13 Damage caused by the knife during peeling.
edges
49 Differences in 13 Irregular structure, branches, pattern too weak;

structure and caused by nature.
texture
50 Compressed 13 Visible lines; overlapping of material.
folds
51 Paint residues 17 Not the entire surface was removed by
laser treatment.
52 Burn marks 5, 17 Thermal change of the plastic substrate (color
change).


type: *)
allocation :
53 Orientation de- 18 Incorrect orientation of fiber direction; different

fects running direction
54 Mold separation 18 Form offset due to tool separation, line for-
edges mation due to tool separation
55 Fabric irregulari- 18 Fiber imprints in the fabric, fiber cracks in the
ties fabric
56 Fabric warp- 18 Warping due to geometry
ing/distortion
xx …. ….
xxx …. ff.
*) Process allocation:
! 1) Anodizing
! 2) Powder coating (EPS)
! 3) Wet painting
! 4) Extrusion
! 5) Injection molding
! 6) Galvanizing
! 7) Plasma processes (evaporating, sputtering, CVD, PVD)
! 8) Forming
! 9) Polishing
! 10) Assembly/packaging/handling
! 11) Incoming material
! 12) Plastics processing
! 13) Refined wooden surfaces
! 14) Application technology (bonding of foil inserts, embossing
of decorative films)
! 15) Metal die-casting
! 16) Mechanical processing (e. g. grinding/polishing/deburring/
drilling/milling/insertion, etc.)
! 17) Laser lettering
! 18) Fiber composite technology (CFK)


! 19) Leather material characteristics
! 20) Leather cladding process
! 21) Inmolded color/colored injection molding
! 22) Printed surfaces
! 23) Ceran coating of anodized aluminum
! 24) Caulking (cold), welding (hot)
! 25) Weaving/textile
! 26) SMC, partly in connection with IMC (for trucks)
! 27) Hand laminate (for trucks)
! 28) Silk screening on glass surfaces
! 29) Galvanized multi-component parts
! 30) Carpet processing, e. g. deep-drawing, etc.
! 31) Flocking
! 32) Stainless steel surface processing


7 Acceptance criteria
For each product-related characteristic defined under point 6, the maximum

tolerable levels achievable under serial conditions must be specified. Ideal-
ly, this should be done in a bilateral coordination process between custom-
er and supplier, whenever possible, before submitting the quota-
tion/creating the calculation, or with reference to existing projects.
7.1 Acceptable characteristics
For an example, see Table 10.1 in the Appendix
7.2 Quantifiable characteristics

7.2.1 Classification
For an example of qualitative specification, see Table 10.2.1 in the Appen-

dix
7.2.2 Permitted density/frequency
For an example of quantitative specification, see Table 10.2.1 in the Ap-

pendix


8 Evaluation method
Imperfections detected within the observation time are to be compared with

the acceptance criteria.
If in doubt, the degree should be determined with a measuring magnifier

M = 8-10 x.


9 Miscellaneous
For the implementation of the acceptance criteria specified in Section 7,

this specification must be taken into account in the procurement process for
semi-finished products, accessories and surface service providers. This is
to ensure the timely definition particularly of semi-finished products related
requirements.


10 Appendix
The measurable characteristic attributes listed in the Appendix represent
the characteristic attributes that can be produced economically under serial
conditions according to the current state of technology. Depending on their
respective (product-related) suitability, they also must be used for the basic
calculation, or can provide a basis for individual ppm agreements for series
launch and series production.
10.1 Table of examples for tolerable characteristic

attributes
Table 10.1: Tolerable characteristic attributes (examples!)
Pos. Characteristic Process Zone A Zone B

**)
attribute type allocation
5, 8, 12, visible and palpable

1 Offset +/- 0.7 mm
13, 15 +/- 0.3 mm
according to MTP according to MTP

2 Burn marks 1, 6
sample sample
if visible within distance if visible within dis-
of tance of > =
3 Bumps/dents 6, 8 - 16
>= 800 mm, not per- 1200 mm, not per-
missible missible
4a Bubbles 2, 3, 6, 7, 13
sample sample
2, 3, 6, 7, 13, according to MTP according to MTP
4b Pitting
18 sample sample
d<= 0.7 mm max. d<= 1.0 mm max.
6, 8, 9, 10,
5 Impression marks 2 impressions within 4 impressions within
12, 13, 16
400 mm distance 300 mm distance

6 Anodizing splits 1, 23
sample sample
according to MTP
7 Color misting 3, 13 permissible
sample
Deviation according to according to MTP

8 Color differences 2, 3, 6, 13, 23
MTP sample sample
according to MTP
9 Swollen edges 2, 3, 6, 13, 23 permissible
sample


**)
1, 2, 3, 6,
10 Flecks not permissible not permissible
7, 13, 23
Flash on tool split
11 5, 6, 13 max. +0.3 mm max. 0.5 mm
line
1, 3, 6, 7, 13, according to MTP according to MTP

12 Differences in sheen
23 sample sample
13 Flash/burrs 2, 3, 5, 8, 15
sample sample
14 Grittiness 1, 3, 6
sample sample
15 Hairline splits 3, 6, 10, 13
sample sample
Contact/gripping
16 points 1, 2, 6, 7
sample sample
(due to process)
l<= 10 mm,
l<= 4 mm, b<= 0.5 mm
Scratches, grooves 5, 6, 8, 10, b<= 0.7 mm max.
17 max. 2 scratches within
(longitudinal) 13, 16, 18 4 scratches within
300 mm distance
200 mm distance
Scratches, grooves 5, 6, 8, 10,
17 not permissible not permissible
(lateral) 13, 16
2, 3, 13, 18,
18 Paint runs not permissible permissible
23
Lens-shaped paint according to MTP according to MTP
19 2, 3, 13, 23
marks sample sample
according to MTP
20 Thin coating areas 2, 3, 7, 13, 23 not permissible
sample
21 Macro-splits 1, 6
sample sample
An accumulation of
2, 3, 6, 7, 13,
22 Pin holes <= 5 pinpricks on 4 cm2 Pinpricks permissible
18
is permissible

23 Nickel patches 6
sample sample
fine structure permissi- coarse structure per-
ble according to MTP missible according to
24 Orange peel effect 2, 3, 6, 13, 23 sample regarding MTP sample regard-
degree and area per- ing degree and area
centage percentage


**)
within distance of within distance of
25 Oxide lines 11 >= 800 mm, structures >= 1200 mm, struc-
not permissible tures not permissible
1 – 7, 12, 15,
26 Pimples/inclusions see Section 10.2 see Section 10.2
23
Pigmentation prob- according to MTP according to MTP
27 2, 3
lems sample sample
Various polishing de- if visible within distance if visible within dis-

28 fects, 6, 9, 13, 16 >= 800 mm, not per- tance >= 1200 mm,
missible not permissible
t<= 0.3 mm, t<= 0.5 mm, b max.

Polishing fishes b<= 2.5 mm, I< = 5 mm 3 mm, I<= 8 mm
29 6, 9, 11, 13
(comet tails) max. 2 within 400 mm max. 4 within 300 mm
distance distance
l<= 80 mm,
l<= 60 mm, b<=0.5 mm
b<= 3 mm, max. 10
30 Polishing streaks 6, 9, 13, 16 max. 6 within 300 mm
within 200 mm dis-
distance
tance
31 Pores 2, 3, 6, 13, 15 see Section 10.2 see Section 10.2

Indications of according to MTP according to MTP
32 4, 8
seams/seam welds sample sample
according to MTP
33 Scour marks 6, 10, 13, 15 not permissible
sample
Web imprints (linear if visible within distance if visible within dis-
34 markings - rolling 4, 6, 8, 15 >= 800 mm, not per- tance >= 1200 mm,
groove) missible not permissible

35 Striations 8, 11
sample sample
36 Graininess 6
sample sample
37 Corrugations 6, 8, 9, 11, Not permissible if the visible within distance
13, 16 following conditions of >= 4 m, not per-
apply: missible
- Part in installation if evaluated according
position to Zone A
- Artificial light source
1.2 m above test ob-
ject
- Distance observer to
test object


**)
2.5 m ! 0.5 m
- Viewing direction
20°-45° to longitudi-
nal vehicle axis under
static observation
Cloudiness/ fogging/ 3, 6, 7, 9, 13, according to MTP according to MTP

38
streaks 23 sample sample
39 Differences in coat- 2, 3, 6, 23 according to MTP according to MTP
ing thicknesses sample sample
40 Sink marks 6, 12, 13, 15, according to MTP according to MTP
18 sample sample
41 Converging flow 6, 13, 15 according to MTP according to MTP
marks sample sample
42 Sucker marks 3, 6, 12, according to MTP according to MTP

15, 16 sample sample
43 Seam welds 12, 13, 15 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
44 Mositure inclusion 2, 5.12, 13 permissible according
not permissible
to MTP sample
45 Holes 6 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
46a Alignment gaps 13 according to MTP
permissible
sample
46b Alignment offset 13 according to MTP

permissible
sample
47 Patch marks 13 according to MTP
permissible
sample
48 Jagged knife edges 13 according to MTP
Not permissible
sample
49 Differences in struc- 13 according to MTP

permissible
ture and texture sample
50 Compressed folds 13 according to MTP
permissible
sample
51 Paint residues 17 according to MTP

Not permissible
sample
52 Burn marks 5, 17 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample


**)
53 Orientation defects 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
54 Mold separation 18 according to MTP according to MTP
edges sample sample
55 Fabric irregularities 18 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
56 Fabric warping/ 18 according to MTP according to MTP
distortion sample sample
57 Resin edges 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
58 Black points 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
59 Tissue discoloration 18 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
60 White spots 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
61 Lack of resin 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
62 Resin surplus 18 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
63 Fiber splitting 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
64 Fabric overlapping 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
65 Missing fabric 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
66 Fraying in fabric 18 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
67 Tool impression 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
68 Resin flaking 18 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
69 Structure 19 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
70 Scars grown together 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample


**)
71 Warts 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
72 Hair pores 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
73 Insect stings 19 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
74 Open pores 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
75 Rough spots 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
76 Neck grooves 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
77 Fat wrinkles 19 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
78 Veininess 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
79 Flank 19 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
80 Loose leather 20 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
81 Pressure spots 20 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
82 Foreign objects 20 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
83 Stains 20 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
84 Glue residues 20 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
85 Leather damaged 20 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
86 Leather folds 20 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
87 Leather too short 20 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
88 Leather too long 20 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample


**)
89 Transition panel-to- 20 according to MTP according to MTP
leather sample sample
90 Fiber inclusions 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
91 Fiber weave warping 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
92 Weaving depression 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
93 Uneven surface 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
94 Weaving lines 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
95 Weaving offset 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
96 Dark fibers 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
97 Fiber openings 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
98 Incision 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
99 Gap 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
100 Shadows (ghost 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
marks) sample sample
101 Seam line 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
102 Soiling in the surface 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP

sample sample
103 Grinding marks 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
104 Varnish runs 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
105 Fissures 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP

(cracks/chipping) sample sample
106 Glossy spots 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample


**)
107 Pressure spots 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
108 Edge grinding de- 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
fects sample sample
109 Delamination (of 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP

edges) sample sample
110 Resin defects 18.2 according to MTP according to MTP
sample sample
*) Process allocation:
" 1) Anodizing
" 2) Powder coating (EPS)
" 3) Wet painting
" 4) Extruding
" 5) Injection molding
" 6) Galvanizing
" 7) Plasma processes (evaporation, sputtering, CVD, PVD)
" 8) Over molding
" 9) Polishing
" 10) Assembly/packaging/handling
" 11) Incoming material
" 12) Plastics processing
" 13) Refined wood surfaces
" 14) Application technology (gluing insert foils, embossing of
decorative foils)
" 15) Metal die-casting
" 16) Mechanical processing (e. g. grinding/polishing/deburring/
drilling/milling, insertion etc.)
" 17) Laser lettering
" 18) Fiber composite technology (CFK)
" 19) Leather material characteristics
" 20) Leather cladding process


" 21) Inmolded color / colored injection molding
" 22) Printed surfaces
" 23) Ceran coating of anodized aluminum
" 24) Caulking (cold), welding (hot)
" 25) Weaving/textile
" 26) SMC, partly in connection with IMC (for trucks)
" 27) Hand laminate (for trucks)
" 28) Silk screening on glass surfaces
" 29) Galvanized multi-component parts
" 30) Carpet processing, e. g. deep-drawing, etc.
" 31) Flocking
" 32) Stainless steel surface processing


10.2 Table of examples for quantifiable characteristics
acc. to Table 10.1
10.2.1 Example of classification by size and

permissible frequency
Maximum permissible total of characteristic per product-specific reference

area
Table 10.2.1: Classification by size and permissible frequency
Size class Limit values [mm] Frequency
Interior Exterior Zone A Zone B
0.3 < x ≤ 0.5 < x ≤

Large 1 2
0.5 0.8
0.2 < x ≤ 0.3 < x ≤
Medium 2 4
0.3 0.5
no no
Small x ≤ 0.2 x ≤ 0.3
restriction restriction
10.2.2 Example of classification by minimum distance

between individual defects
Characteristics with dimensions in any direction not exceeding > 0.2 mm

(interior) or > 0.3 mm (exterior) are not evaluated.
In zone A, 2 characteristics per part with dimensions in any direction not

exceeding > 0.3 mm (interior) or > 0.5 mm (exterior) are permissible if the
distance between them is ≥ 150 mm.
In zone B, 4 characteristics per part with dimensions in any direction not

exceeding > 0.3 mm (interior) or > 0.5 mm (exterior) are permissible if the
distance between them is ≥ 100 mm.
For a part size below an enclosed circle of 200 mm, the following restriction
applies:


Zone A:
# max. 2 with dimensions in any direction not exceeding > 0.5 mm;
for surfaces up to 25 mm²
# max. 3 with dimensions in any direction not exceeding > 0.5 mm,
Zone B:
for surfaces up to 25 mm².
10.3 Table of examples for practice-orientated

observation times
Table 10.3: Practice-orientated observation times (examples!)
Product Potential observation time (sec)

Logos, small 5
Panels 10
Front panels 15
Gear stick switches 10
Chrome rings 5
Filling pieces 5
Exterior mirrors 20 – 30 sec (according to complexity)
Trim strips 15
Leather skin 120
High-gloss center console 15-20
Alloy wheels 5 – 10 sec (according to complexity)
Generally, the following applies to pure serial inspections:

# Observation always in installation position.
# No conscious deflectometry inspection of parts.


# No searching for defective characteristic attributes. Only character-
istic attributes that were detected during the inspection phase and
that exceed the specified limits and MTP samples should be con-
sidered as defects.
10.4 Example of a ppm calculation with

consideration of outgoing quality
In view of ongoing discussions in practice with regard to dealing with out-

going quality and the proportion of missed defects from Chap. 5.7.2. and
5.7.3, an example has been included here to illustrate the unavoidable min-
imum slip-through rate, along with a numeric example for the effect on the
potential (unavoidable) proportion of defective parts in the supplied batch.
By means of a practical numerical example, this illustration explains which

portion of a production or supply batch the respective ppm values should
reasonably be referred to.
Quantity inspected (100% of batch)
Production
100% final inspection

Percentage OK
(delivery batch)
NOK
Unavoidable percentage of items slipping through the net in the (delivery) batch.
: PD = 0.003 – the equivalent of 0.3%
Packing It is not possible to distinguish between defective and
defect-free parts and defective parts slip through
Example
Quantity inspected : 10 000 parts
Percentage found to be OK: 80%
Quantity shipped : 8 000 parts
Ship off Unavoidable defective parts in delivery batch : 24 parts (3000 ppm)


10.5 Formulation aids for quality agreements
regarding appearance-dependent surface
characteristics
If a Quality Assurance Agreement (QAA) or other quality agreement for the

supply of appearance-dependent surface parts does not include any spe-
cial provisions regarding the handling of the special aspects of the specifi-
cation and evaluation of these characteristic attributes, it is recommended
to deal with these necessary subjects, based on VDA Volume 16, in an ap-
pendix to the QAA. For this purpose, the following phrase is advisable in
the QAA:
“The necessary consideration of the particularities regarding the supply of

appearance-dependent decorative add-on parts, according to the scope of
application of VDA Vol. 16, is dealt with here in a separate Appendix, e. g.
in the form of a “PPM Customer Agreement”.
Example “PPM Customer Agreement” see 10.6
If the special aspects of the specification and evaluation of attribute levels

of appearance-dependent parts are already to be dealt with in a QAA or a
quality agreement, the following phrasing has proved useful in practice as a
formulation aid:
1) Possible title: Quality assurance agreement with special consid-

eration of the necessary agreement for the quality assurance in the
supply of appearance-dependent decorative surfaces of accessory
and functional parts in the exterior and interior areas of automo-
biles
2) Possible preamble: In particular, special requirements for the pro-

cedures for production process approval and product approval are
being defined by the quality assurance agreement. Additional
agreements are also made with special consideration of the parts
to be supplied with regard to their appearance-dependent surfaces
rd
characteristic attributes, based on VDA Vol. 16 - 3 edition 2016.
3) Possible addition to the text: If the scope of supply/scope of va-

lidity of this QAA also includes appearance-dependent decorative
accessory parts in accordance with the scope of application of VDA


Vol. 16, valid MTP samples shall be created between the CUS-
TOMER company and the entire supply chain already in the pilot
series, and shall be distributed as controlled test samples. The
CUSTOMER company is responsible for the process with regard to
the creation, coordination with the CUSTOMER company’s client (if
applicable) and the control of these MTP samples (MTP samples
Class A, Class B or minimum Class C).
4) Possible addition to the text: The demands on the characteristic

attributes of the MTP samples may change in the course of the
project due to the developing process capabilities of the production
processes, and therefore require continuous bilateral coordination
between CUSTOMER company and SUPPLIER at the project or
pilot series stage.
5) Possible addition to the text: For the process series in the con-
text of process approval in SOP, the CUSTOMER company shall
agree valid final MTP samples with the SUPPLIER and the entire
supply chain as a basis for the series supply quality, and shall dis-
tribute them as controlled test samples. The CUSTOMER company
is responsible for the process with regard to the creation, coordina-
tion with the CUSTOMER company’s client (if applicable) and the
control of these MTP samples (MTP samples Class A or Class B)
(see VDA Vol. 16).
6) Possible addition in Appendix 1: Rate for sorting of parts by

CUSTOMER
Starting from 1/1, 2xxx, an hourly rate of EUR xx is agreed for work
performed by CUSTOMER for the sorting of parts in deliveries from
suppliers that are not in accordance with quality specifications. The
expenses are recorded by the xvz department. After the sorting is
completed, the Supplier will receive information on the hours spent,
and CUSTOMER Accounting will calculate the cost promptly after
the sorting procedure.
7) Possible addition in Appendix 2: Companies approved by CUS-

TOMER for reworking and sorting:
8) Possible addition in Appendix 3: Ranking for complaints with re-

gard to characteristic attributes in the event of effects on the pro-
cess within a supply chain:
If parts are processed within a process chain at several places by


different suppliers, resulting in characteristic attributes that are
“created” at different places by different entities responsible for the
process, then the following ranking is being defined for the conclu-
sive evaluation of all these characteristic attributes by the last pro-
cess step, providing the basis for the NOK evaluation for the com-
plaints claim (allocation of NOK characteristic attributes to the pro-
cess step causing them, respectively):
Rank 1: Raw part defect, CUSTOMER production
Rank 2: Processing defect by subsequent process No. 1
Rank 3: Processing defect by subsequent process No. 2

…
Rank n: Processing defect by last process step of surface pro-

cessing
Example:
Rank 1: Raw parts, molding at CUSTOMER
Rank 2: Raw parts, grinding/polishing at Supplier A
Rank 3: Cleaning and tempering of polished raw parts at Supplier B
Rank 4: Surface processing of cleaned raw parts at Supplier C, e. g. by

galvanizing
Ranking of NOK characteristic attributes for the cause-related allocation of

the complaint:
Supplier C performs the 100% visual surface inspection, and allocates the
NOK characteristic attributes according to valid MTP samples as follows:
# Rank 1: Parts with raw-part defects (and, if applicable, also
with defects from grinding, cleaning/tempering, and galvanizing
defects) > Allocation to CUSTOMER as raw-part defects
# Rank 2: Parts without raw-part defects, but with defects from
grinding (and, if applicable, also with defects from clean-
ing/tempering, and galvanizing defects) > Allocation to Suppli-
er A as grinding defects


# Rank 3: Parts without raw-part defects and without grinding de-
fects, but with defects from cleaning/tempering (and also gal-
vanizing defects, if applicable) > Allocation to Supplier B as
cleaning/tempering defects
# Rank 4: Parts without raw-part defects, without grinding de-
fects, without defects from cleaning/tempering, but with galva-
nizing defects > Allocation to Supplier C as galvanizing defects
The 100% sorting of the surface defects is performed once by the supplier
of the process step of the last surface processing; in this case, by Suppli-
er C, galvanizing. On the basis of valid MTP samples for all characteristic
attributes, the inspection/sorting is performed here on the final product for
the presence of the respective characteristic attributes and their evaluation
in comparison with the MTP samples as OK/NOK, and the notifica-
tion/return to the SCM of CUSTOMER.
The Suppliers QA Team will initiate, via SCM and CUSTOMER Accounting,
the charging of the supplier complaint in accordance with the respective
cause and the above ranking.
9) Possible addition in Appendix 4: Test time specifications for sorting of

parts:
See general information in VDA Volume 16
10) Possible addition in Appendix 5: Realization of traceability:
Process description required if traceability is requested / agreed by contract
11) Possible addition in Appendix 6: Incoming-goods inspection – Sam-

ple size and acceptance number:
For incident-driven incoming-goods inspections, the following sample sizes

are defined:
Batch size N to 100 pieces > n = 5 parts
Batch size above 1000 pieces > n = 3% of parts


The acceptance number is always zero.
In order to take into account the sensitivity of the visual inspection of ap-
pearance-dependent surface characteristics, the following procedure ap-
plies:
1) If 1 NOK part is found in the first sample, another sample is taken with
the next higher sample size.
2) If no NOK part is found here, the batch is accepted; if 1 or more NOK

parts are found, the batch is rejected.
12) Possible addition in Appendix 7: Tolerated slip-through for 100%

visual part inspection:
For 100% visual part inspections of appearance-dependent surface charac-

teristics, it is agreed that a slip-through of …….. % of NOK parts is tolerat-
ed as an acceptable percentage of missed defects in relation to the defined
MTP samples. These NOK parts are counted among the accumulated re-
jects.
There is no separate processing of corrective measures via 8D report for

this. Initiated corrective measures for optimizing the detection probability in
visual inspection of appearance-dependent surface characteristics are
documented in the product quality history.
Separate corrective measures are only requested in case of defect per-

centages > …… % and in case of systematic defect percentages due to
process problems that can be directly allocated. Such cases must be ap-
proached by using systematic problem solution methods and documenta-
tion via 8D report.
However, the acceptance of a percentage of missed defects only relates to

the claims with regard to processing costs for respective NOK parts deliver-
ies to the CUSTOMER company. Of course, ALL NOK parts delivered to
the CUSTOMER company according to comparison with the agreed MTP
samples are subject to complaint, and are charged in accordance with con-
tractual agreements – either in the context of charging for accumulated re-
jects, or of charging for individual complaints.
The tolerated percentages of missed defects will not be considered either

in the calculation of the process-related failure rates agreed individually


with the surface coating providers. These failure percentages agreed for
raw-part defects and process rejects only refer to the rejects generated di-
rectly in-house at the surface coating providers.
13) Possible addition in Appendix 8: Notification in case of apparent

cumulation of raw-part defects at the surface coating provider:
If a cumulation of raw-part defects > 10% is detected at the surface coating

provider, an immediate notification shall be sent to CUSTOMER, QA Pro-
duction:
! here, names of direct contacts, communication details.
From here, there will be an immediate response regarding the use of the
parts at the surface coating provider, directed to his Quality Department.
The further procedure will be organized after information of QA Production
by the SCM in cooperation with Production.
14) Possible addition in Appendix 9: Exchange of quality-relevant data

and test results in the supply chain
Each supplier in a supply chain is obligated to the direct and rapid commu-
nication of quality-relevant data and test results, in a data format to be
agreed in the context of the APQP process.
Ideally, there will be a prompt exchange, updated daily, of quality-relevant

data and test results by integration of the respective supplier into the data
exchange process of the CUSTOMER company (e. g. direct integration into
the CAQ system of the CUSTOMER company by means of an appropriate
IT link or an appropriate software tool).
The possible IT connection of the supplier is to be clarified with his IT de-

partment by the QA division of the CUSTOMER company, and to be coor-
dinated in view of the best option.
For this purpose, the following provisions are agreed with the supplier: (tick
as appropriate)
□ Exchange of defect inspection charts on the same day via ToolCom

directly into the CAQ system of the CUSTOMER company


□ Exchange of defect inspection charts on the same day by sending
an Excel file that is updated daily

the defect inspection charts as a file

the defect inspection charts as a file in PDF format
□ Exchange of defect inspection charts on the same day /

in the same week by sending the scanned defect inspection charts
as a PDF file
□ Exchange of defect inspection charts on the same day /

in the same week by sending the defect inspection charts in paper
form


10.6 Example of PPM Customer Agreement for
supply of products with appearance-dependent
characteristic attributes
PPM-value customer Possible different confirmation ppm-

Components
specification customer value supplier
sup
Safety glass and laminated safety glass
Polished alu parts with anodized surface
Reel galvanization/-finishing
Plastic injection moulding
Stamping parts
Stamp, bending, screw, -parts, -springs
Nuts, rivets, srews
Injection molded parts painted with alu-,

-, zamak-
and magnesium respectively with technically
echnically
surface
Seals, rubbers etc.
Painted plastic injection

jection moulding
Paints, chemicals
Substrates
Circulating packings
Films, scales, prints

Supplier´s part specific peak production (sample-
Acceptance from XXX
phase, pre-serie, serie a.s.o.)
via countersigned supplier's appendix
Relevant lists of prohibited substances as well as the requirements of the REACH regulations must be complied with.
If your part is not included in this list, please contact XXX at the Quality Assurance Department.
The ppm value applies to all specifications.


10.7 Best-practice examples for design of testing
stations for surface inspection of appearance-
dependent attributes
Examples of testing-station design for special applications:
Testing station for anodized surfaces

In the design of a testing station or for an in-
spection at the place of manufacture, the arti-
ficial light source should be arranged at a ver-
tical distance of approx. 120 cm above the
test object.
Generally, a uniform lighting of the test object
must be ensured.
This may be achieved by installing

an additional light source obliquely
from the side (image above)


Testing/assembly station for anodized surfaces
The same lighting conditions are provided for

assembly workstations, since the assembly is
always followed by a surface inspection.
The surface protection of workbenches is se-
lected according to the respective require-
ments, however, always ensuring that the ma-
terial will not cause any damage to the surfac-
es.
Customer
Staff
Board
Staff
Board


Customer Employee-
Board


Testing station for evaluation of painted surfaces on the entire vehicle in a
light tunnel, by manufacturer (OEM)


10.8 Best-practice examples for design of
light cabinets for color and surface evaluation
of appearance-dependent attributes for different
applications
Examples for acceptance of appearance and color


Light cabinet manufacturer; Colour Control Optik and Lightpoint Optik,
background matte black, primarily for evaluation of exterior purchased parts
and painted surfaces incl. sparkle, additionally interior
Manufacturer/X-Rite Spectralight II background matte black,

serial inspection


Manufacturer/X-Rite Spectralight III, background light gray, for interior
purchased parts textiles, leather
Manufacturer/X-Rite Spectralight II/III, background light gray, primarily for

evaluation of interior parts


Textiles and leather in accordance with GM Standard / SAE Standard


Manufacturer/X-Rite Spectralight III, background light gray, for evaluation of
interior purchased parts


10.9 Best-practice examples for new inspection lamps
on optimized LED-basis with diffusing panel for
high-gloss surfaces
The new type of testing station illumination shown here has proved to be
best practice with several users e. g. for evaluation of high-gloss surfaces
painted in piano black. The perceptibility of characteristic attributes is signif-
icantly increased by the use of this type of illumination. However, it is es-
sential to ensure that only those surfaces exceeding defined MTP samples
regarding the magnitude of characteristic attributes will lead to an NOK as-
sessment, and not the mere increased perceptibility of characteristics.
Example of modern workplace system lighting
Configuration: 4 x LED module

Light color: neutral white 4000 K, color rendering index Ra=80
Glare control: Conical prismatic screen


Detail view of diffusing panel (to prevent LED spots)
10.10 Image catalog for addressing characteristics
Free download available at: http://www.vda-qmc.de/downloads

Username: vda16
Password: 03062016


10.11 Best-practice examples for test templates for eval-
uation of measurable characteristic levels


2.0 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8
0.6 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.2
0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1

5
10.12 Characteristic Gage R&R Effectiveness/

Characteristic MSA
An executable EXCEL file including a demo program to perform this type of

inspection by attributes with regard to the comparability of inspectors and
inspections of appearance-dependent parts according to Chapter 5.8, and
a sample Excel file for performing an attributive MSA are also available by
free download. Access data see Chapter 10.10


11 References
The following relevant research reports were considered, among others, in

compiling the specifications:
(The reports contain additional references)
Heinz Schmidke, Lehrbuch der Ergonomie, Kap. Belastung und Beanspru-

chung / Abschnitt 3.5 “Wachsamkeitsprobleme”.
Prof. Dr. med. E. Grandjean, Physiologische Arbeitsplatzgestaltung,

Kap. 9.3 “Daueraufmerksamkeit”.
Dr. phil. Martin Schütte, Qualitätsprüfung und mentale Beanspruchung.
DIN EN ISO 8785 Surface Imperfections.
KU-Marketing, Europa/VAT, Bayer AG, Leverkusen: Spritzgießen - Fehler,

Ursachen, Abhilfe.
IWK RWTH Aachen: Merkmale von Aluminium-Strangpressprofilen, Eigen-

verlag 2001.
DGM: Fehlerkatalog Strangpressen (AK Leichtmetall).
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Metallguss an der FH Aalen: Druckguss-Fehlerkatalog

Zink, ISBN 3-932291-12-3.


12 Sources
Photos from member companies in Working Group 16 with their kind per-
mission
Photos regarding light cabinets by kind permission of Adam Opel AG
Various photos from brochures and press releases by kind permission of

Oligo

Willing

Hartmann Leuchten
Photos of various testing station designs by kind permission of

WKW.automotive
Photos of various testing station designs by kind permission of HTI AG
Photos of various test templates by kind permission of BIA Kunststoff- und

Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Demmel AG, TSG Troeger Surface
Group OHG,


Quality Management in the Automotive Industry
The current version of published VDA volumes regarding quality manage-

ment in the automotive industry (QAI) can be found at
http://www.vda-qmc.de.
You can also place orders directly on this homepage.
Reference:

Qualitäts Management Center (QMC)
Behrenstr. 35, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Phone +49 (0) 30 8978 42-235, Fax +49 (0) 30 8978 42-605
E-mail: info@vda-qmc.de, Internet: www.vda-qmc.de



VDA - Band - 16 - 3. Ausgabe 2016 - Englisch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VDA - Band - 16 - 3. Ausgabe 2016 - Englisch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Umschlag_Band_16_engl:Umschlag_rot 06.04.

2009 10:17 Uhr Seite 1

3rd revised edition 2016

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA)

Printed on chlorine-free bleached paper.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) recommends

If during use of the VDA recommendation, errors or the possibility of misin-

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Berlin, August 2016

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

6 Defining characteristic/addressing defects 35

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

This VDA publication is rather intended as a communication instrument to

VDA Publication 16 is also intended to alert to the existence of defect slip-

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

The publication also serves the purpose of a clear description of decorative

In order to prevent costs and quality problems caused after SOP by a

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

This VDA publication applies to all decorative surfaces of accessories and

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

# Decorative moldings (e. g. handle strips, shaft covers, frames, ram

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

The consideration includes components and surface-relevant completions.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

Evaluation zones must be specified in the parts drawing or in the data

It is also recommended to create MTP zone samples, in which the relevant

The following table shows a possible part-specific zone division regarding

ZONE DEFINITION ALLOCATION

A Surfaces in immediate Exterior:

B Surfaces in obstructed vision, or Exterior:

Optional: Surfaces that are concealed after No surface relevance

Optional: Surfaces that are not relevant with

For concealed surfaces, the functionality must always be ensured.

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.

The evaluation of decorative parts must be performed according to their

5.2 Lighting conditions

For the evaluation of characteristic attributes at the respective testing sta-

# For the evaluation of characteristic attributes, lamp type 865 and

Lamp type: Color temperature: Color rendering index Ra:

Dokument wurde bereitgestellt vom

Nur zur internen Verwendung für ZF Friedrichshafen AG bestimmt.