A Case Study: Troubleshooting Score Marks

Four common approaches to troubleshooting press-shop problems are 1) ignore the problem, 2)
emotionally order random corrective actions, 3) blame the metal supplier and 4) undertake a
logical data-based analysis of the problem. This true case study incorporates features of all four
approaches. The higher-strength-steel problem part is a deep-drawn, closed-end channel with
welded flanges. Separate dies in separate presses form symmetrical left- and right-hand
channels. Severe sidewall scoring in the right-hand channel is a perpetual problem that no longer
can be ignored.
Attempts to eliminate the scoring have focused on pursuing a long list of traditional modifications
such as polishing the die, changing punch-die clearance and playing with different lubricants.
One could characterize this approach as emotionally ordering random corrective actions. These
attempts to correct problems almost always begin without a valid definition of the problem or a
final goal.
One day, two different coils of steel produced right-hand parts with different amounts of scoring.
Now the problem is obvious, the steel is the root cause. The steel supplier receives a call to
attend a demonstration at the stamping plant. First, a section of coil B (for bad) produces parts.
Then a section of coil G (for good) produces parts. Yes, the G-coil parts visually show somewhat
less scoring than the B-coil parts. In the traditional way of doing business, the representative
from the steel supplier returns to his company with a mandate to supply better steel. Blaming the
supplier is completed.
However, all participants have ignored the rules of good troubleshooting. First, a numerical
definition of the problem is required to provide a base line or reference point. Relating back to
this starting condition allows one to track progress toward the final goal or problem solution. The
final goal also must be a numerical and realistic target. A goal of zero defects forever is not
realistic. It looks, I think, I know, I assume, I feel, its probably and I am comfortable
with are not numerical statements of either the problem or final goal.
How does one numerically define scoring of a part? In this problem, the area of the rectangle
encompassing each distinct patch of scoring is measured. No scoring for 0.25 in. means that one
patch has ended and another patch has started. The total area of all patches is the scoring index
for that part. Measurement of multiple parts not only provides an average scoring index, but also
a measure of repeatability.
The graph shows the results from this study. The results for the right-hand part (1) show two
distinct lines confirming that coil G produces

less scoring than coil B. However, the difference

between the scoring index of G and B is small
compared with the total scoring index. The steel coils
make a difference but one or more variables play a
much larger role.
Now that the problem has a numerical definition, what is
the final goal? Our steel-company representative has
learned another lesson of troubleshooting. He questions
the person most involved with the problem, the die
Graph showing the progression of
improvement during the search for the cause maker assigned to the part. He quickly learns that the
of sidewall scoring.
die maker never has any problems reported to him
about the left-hand tool. Since everyone ignores those parts, that level of scoring must be okay.
Now we have the best troubleshooting opportunity. For two symmetrical parts, one hand has the
problem, while the opposite hand holds the solution. Instead of trying to find the solution from a
large number of possibilities, the search now focuses on what is different between the two parts.
For a valid right-hand to left-hand comparison, performing tests with the same process conditions
eliminates extraneous variables. In this case, four steel samplescoil G prime-side up and down
and coil B prime-side up and downare formed in each die. The results (2) for the left-hand part
show the same difference between coils G and B as the previous results. However, the left-hand
part has almost half the severity of the right-hand part. Obviously, the root cause of the problem
is not the steel but the difference between the right- and left-hand dies.
To find the difference between dies, visual inspection is conducted on both sets of open dies
placed side-by-side. The difference becomes immediately obvious. The intersection of a curved
surface and a straight section is not tangential. This creates a sharp edge that causes galling and
then scoring. Of course, the next instruction is to modify the right-hand die to duplicate the lefthand die until the scoring indexes are equal (now the numerical target).
This case study has a mixed ending. The bad news is that during the modification of the righthand die a major mistake occurred. The good news is that when the right-hand die now makes
parts, the scoring index is not equal to the left-hand part. The new right-hand scoring index (3)
has dropped to nearly zero with no difference between coils B and G.
In reviewing this case study, one reasonably could ask why no one made an early comparison
with the left-hand die. The answer usually lies deep within the culture of the press shop. I only
have time to do one job; I only work on what my boss tells me to work on and if its not broken,
I dont worry about it are some of the reasons why much troubleshooting remains an
undocumented guessing game. Many excellent troubleshooting techniques are available. Only
the surviving press shops use them

Source: http://www.metalformingmagazine.com/magazine/article.asp?iid=40&aid=4986