Role-based use cases for automotive suppliers

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: The recliner unlocked and shifted under sled pulse — most likely due to a locking-element failure (pawl/sector engagement, fastener preload, or component deformation) or a mismatch between test load path and design assumptions; immediate containment, targeted teardown, and instrumented re-test are required to root-cause and close PFMEA gaps.

Detailed Analysis:

• Immediate containment (do before any teardown if parts required for evidence):
  • Stop further sled runs on that configuration; tag and quarantine the failed assembly and the matched sled fixture components.
  • Capture high-resolution photos of as-recovered orientation, fracture surfaces, fasteners, and nearby seat-structure.
  • Secure raw test data: acceleration trace, seatback-angle trace, load-cell outputs, video/high-speed footage, actuator/motor logs (if power).
• Key data to collect (minimum):
  • Recliner type: manual (mechanical latch/pawl) or power (motor + gearbox + clutch).
  • Pre-test recline angle and any preloads (occupant surrogate position).
  • Fastener torque records / torque measurement on recovered fasteners.
  • Evidence of wear, plastic deformation, stripped teeth, fractured pawl, rivet shear, or bolt pull-through.
  • Test pulse profile (pulse magnitude, duration, direction), sled fixture constraint points and attachment interfaces.
• Likely failure modes to prioritize for inspection:
  • Pawl disengagement or cam/sector gear tooth shear/strip.
  • Insufficient bolt preload / fastener loosening or thread failure.
  • Local plastic deformation of housing or mounting flange allowing movement.
  • Motor/gearbox back-driving (power recliner) or clutch slipping.
  • Tolerance stack-up allowing insufficient engagement under impact.
  • Fixture/test setup mismatch (load path applied to seatback rather than designed anchor point).
• Immediate diagnostic steps:
  • Non-destructive inspection: visual, dimensional measurements of engagement geometry, fastener torque check.
  • Teardown: inspect pawl, sector, splines, actuator coupling, fasteners, welds/rivets for failure signatures.
  • Recreate failure on bench: apply quasi-static and dynamic loads in the suspected direction; perform torque-to-fail on pawl engagement.
• Short-term mitigations:
  • Increase inspection frequency for incoming recliner parts; check pawl engagement geometry and fastener torque.
  • Add temporary secondary restraint (e.g., mechanical stop or secondary latch) for high-risk builds pending root-cause.
  • For power units, lock motor controller to prevent back-drive during sled pulses if allowed by program.
• Corrective actions to evaluate:
  • Redesign: deeper detent, larger pawl engagement, increased cross-section or harder material, add secondary locking feature.
  • Manufacturing: tighten torque spec, add threadlocker or self-locking fasteners, add torque witness marks, update assembly poka-yoke.
  • Validation: update PFMEA severity/occurrence for this mode; add control plan entry and inspection characteristic.
• Validation / release plan:
  • Instrumented sled repeat with minimum sample size per DVP&R (recommend at least 3 units across tolerance extremes).
  • Correlate with component-level shock tests, static overload, and durability cycles.
  • Update DVP&R to include pulse-direction loading, repeatability acceptance criteria, and torque checks post-test.

One quick question: is this a manual (mechanical) recliner or a power recliner?

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: Critical casting features are the mating datums, functional bores, sealing faces, internal galleries, locating/fastener bosses and structural webs that drive form/fit/function and durability; first-piece inspection must verify those features to drawing/GD&T, confirm metallurgy/heat-treatment, detect porosity/distortion with appropriate NDT, and perform functional leak/pressure checks tied back to DFMEA/DVP&R risk items.

Detailed Analysis: Below are concise, role-focused lists you can use to build a First-Piece Inspection (FPI) checklist linked to DFMEA and DVP&R control characteristics.

• Primary datums and datum features (deck face, block centerplane, main bearing journal datum).
• Cylindrical bores: cylinder bores, main bearing bores, cam bores (ID, roundness, cylindricity, coaxiality).
• Sealing faces and gasket lands (deck, head-mating face, oil pan flange): flatness, waviness, surface finish.
• Internal galleries and passages (water jackets, oil galleries, cooling ports): integrity, wall thickness, feed/core prints.
• Locating features and fastener bosses (dowel bosses, threaded bosses, boss flatness, boss wall thickness).
• Structural webs, ribs, and thin sections (thickness, fillet radii, web connectivity).
• Machining allowances, cast parting/parting line, riser/runner remnants and gating vestige locations.
• Heat-treatment affected zones, residual-stress prone areas, and intended distortion-control features.

• Datum validation and overall orientation: CMM check of datum faces/planes (GD&T datums) — confirm true position references.
• Cylinders & bores: CMM/air gauge for ID, roundness, cylindricity, taper, runout, center-to-center and coaxiality.
• Sealing faces: flatness, parallelism, Ra (profilometer), visual for machining marks.
• Hole/boss location & thread: CMM location, go/no-go thread gauges, thread engagement depth.
• Wall thickness/core integrity: wall-thickness probe or sectioning/CT for critical thin sections.
• Porosity and internal defects: visual, penetrant (surface), MT/UT for ferrous, X-ray/CT for critical bores/galleries per DFMEA severity.
• Metallurgy/heat treat: hardness mapping, microstructure (as required by spec), chemical check coupon if provided.
• Functional tests: hydro/vacuum leak test of water/oil passages; pressure proof where applicable.
• Mass/weight and draft/parting-line check: confirm expected cast weight and flash removal.
• Surface condition: oxide, sand inclusion, seams, burrs—visual accept/reject criteria.
• First-piece report: include CMM plot, NDT reports, hardness map, photos of defects, sign-off by Manufacturing Eng & Quality.

• Tie inspection frequency and 100% checks to DFMEA severity/occurrence (high-severity → 100% electronic checks or NDT).
• Create an FPI checklist that lists each control characteristic, acceptance criteria (drawing tolerance & GD&T), inspection method, sample size, and disposition action.
• For mount-critical or rotating interfaces, require CMM program with plotted nonconformance limits and register reserved CMM points to the drawing datums.
• If CT/X-ray or sectioning is needed, define sample plan in DVP&R and record findings as CAPA inputs.

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: For wheel-end NPI, require an APQP package as the program-level control plan and a First Article (FAI/PPAP) submission prior to production release; treat both as mandatory for safety-critical wheel-end parts unless a documented waiver is approved by Quality/Engineering.

Detailed Analysis:

Must-haves:

• APQP: Use as the cross-functional roadmap for NPI (timing, milestones, DFMEA/PFMEA inputs, control plan, process flow, validation activity triggers, tooling and gauge status, risk mitigations). Include it in the RFQ and supplier contract to lock expectations.
• FAI / PPAP: Require a first-article submission (commonly PPAP Level 2 or Level 3 for wheel-end components) before start of production runs. It evidences dimensional compliance, material/heat-treat certs, process capability, and inspection methods.

Typical minimum deliverables to specify in the PO / RFQ:

• Control Plan, PFMEA, Process Flow
• Dimensional FAI report / PPAP package (dimensional results, comparison to drawing)
• Material & heat-treat certificates
• Process capability (Cpk) and SPC plan
• Inspection/test method descriptions and MSA evidence for critical gauges
• Packaging/labeling spec and traceability plan

Buyer actions / contract language:

• Mandate APQP milestones (DFM review, PPAP submission date) and FAI acceptance as a PO hold point.
• Set required PPAP level and turnaround times in RFQ.
• Require supplier to notify Purchasing/Quality of any tooling changes; re-run FAI if production-intent tooling changes.

Exceptions / risks:

• Off-the-shelf items (bearings, fasteners) may be covered by supplier certs instead of full APQP/FAI—document waiver and acceptance criteria.
• Skipping APQP/FAI increases residual risk on fit, function, and serviceability for wheel-end parts; Quality or Engineering waivers must be explicit.

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: A late ECR that affects HVAC duct routing must be treated as a controlled scope-change with immediate cross-functional triage, a focused impact assessment (package, thermal/flow, assembly, NVH, safety), and a short, milestone-driven mitigation plan that minimizes launch disruption while preserving verification evidence and supplier alignment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Immediate triage (24–48 hrs)
   • Convene CFT (Program, HVAC systems engineering, Package/BD, Tooling, Supplier Quality, Manufacturing, Validation/Testing, Purchasing).
   • Classify the ECR: scope (routing only vs. duct geometry), change type (fit, function, safety, tooling), and urgency (launch-critical, retrofit).
   • Record baseline: current BOM, drawings, 3D CAD link, affected build stages, outstanding dependencies.
2. Rapid impact assessment (3–7 days)
   • CAD interference check with vehicle packaging and adjacent systems; identify minimal re-route options.
   • HVAC performance risk: run targeted CFD/flow/pressure-drop review or request supplier input on expected performance delta.
   • Manufacturing/assembly: identify jigs, fixtures, tooling changes, cycle-time impact, rework needs.
   • Validation: list required re-tests (thermal comfort, defrost, NVH, crash, leakage) and estimated durations.
   • Cost & schedule: capture estimated engineering hours, supplier costs, and calendar impact to launch milestones.
3. Options & decision gate
   • Option A: Implement design workaround with minimal routing change (preferred if it passes fit/flow/validation quickly).
   • Option B: Release full design change with tooling updates (if necessary and schedule allows).
   • Option C: Temporary on-line rework or retrofit kit for early builds (documented and tracked).
   • Present options with trade-offs to Program Control/Change Board for approval.
4. Action plan & controls (post-approval)
   • Issue controlled ECO with clear disposition: drawings, affected lots, effective dates, and accountability.
   • Supplier action package: redlined CAD, first-article requirements, process change instructions, inspection criteria.
   • Short validation plan: define minimal test matrix required to release (risk-based), test owners, and sign-off gates.
   • Update risk register, schedule (Gantt with critical-path updates), and cost-to-complete.
   • Implement temporary containment (hold points, MRB plans) if in-production units are affected.
5. Communication & governance
   • Weekly CFT status with visible KPIs: days-to-decision, validation days remaining, supplier readiness %, cost-to-implement.
   • Escalate to Program Sponsor if launch milestones exceed threshold risk or cost above contingency.
   • Capture lessons learned and update design/packaging checklists to prevent recurrence.

• CFT convened & ECR classified
• CAD interference sign-off
• Supplier feasibility + quote
• Validation scope and schedule defined
• ECO released with lot control
• Production containment instructions (if needed)
• Cost/schedule recorded and approved

• Minor routing tweak with supplier support: 2–4 weeks
• Major reroute requiring tooling/test: 6–12+ weeks

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: Typical production targets for brake rotor lateral (axial) runout are ≤0.05 mm (0.002 in); many OEM validation limits accept up to ~0.08–0.10 mm (0.003–0.004 in) depending on vehicle class and NVH requirements—anything above ~0.10 mm is generally considered reject and a likely root cause for brake judder complaints.

Detailed Analysis:

• Definition: lateral (axial) runout = peak-to-peak axial movement of the rotor friction surface relative to the hub centerline as the rotor is rotated under normal assembly conditions.
• Typical tolerance bands (use as validation starting points; confirm with the vehicle/OEM spec):
  • Target (production / best-practice): ≤0.05 mm (0.002 in)
  • Engineering / acceptance upper bound: ≤0.08 mm (0.003 in)
  • Reject / corrective action threshold: >0.10 mm (0.004 in)
  • Note: heavy-duty or specific brake system designs can have different limits—confirm on a per-vehicle basis.
• Measurement best-practices for repeatable results:
  • Fit rotor to hub/wheel assembly exactly as in service (clean mating surfaces, fit any hub-centric rings if used).
  • Torque wheel studs/nuts to specified sequence and torque before measuring (use final torque value used in vehicle assembly).
  • Use a dial indicator (resolution ≤0.01 mm / 0.0005 in) with the tip on the rotor friction surface near the pad contact diameter.
  • Rotate rotor slowly and record peak-to-peak axial displacement; measure at multiple circumferential positions and record the maximum runout.
  • Record ambient temperature and note if rotor is new, machined, or in-service.
• Common root causes and controls:
  • Hub face runout, dirt/corrosion between hub and rotor, improper torquing/wheel seating, rotor manufacturing/thickness variation, warped/machining errors.
  • Controls: clean mating surfaces, establish bolt torque procedure, machine/replace rotor, specify hub machining tolerances, use hub-centric designs where appropriate.
• Validation recommendations:
  • Define target and acceptance thresholds in the validation plan tied to NVH goals.
  • Include installed-runout (as-assembled) checks and correlate with vehicle-level brake judder NVH tests.
  • Define sampling plan (e.g., initial sample size, ongoing SPC limits) and corrective actions when runout trends approach the upper bound.

• Organization: OEM/Vehicle Service Manual — search: "brake rotor lateral runout specification" + vehicle model.
• Organization: Supplier engineering standards or chassis NVH specification — search: "rotor runout tolerance" + "brakes NVH spec".
• Organization: SAE / industry guidance — search: "SAE brake rotor runout" (verify with the applicable OEM standard).

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.