FORM DESCRIPTION

Corrective Action Request (CAR)

Page 1 of 3
Form No.: F-034
Revision: 1
Release: 19-Dec-11

8-Discipline Steps
Date Open: 10/16/14

Recurring Issue: YES

D1.: Process Owner:

AK Steel

8-D Team:

Concern Found:
August/September

Responsible
Area:

Part No.: Multiple parts

Part Name:

Quantity: Multiple coils

Customer: Gestamp,
SC

Shift:

Customer Reference No. :

(ex. Q-Alert No.)

D2.: Problem Description: AK-3

Gestamp has noticed a substantial increase in the number of coils with repeat marks in the
month of September.

D3.: Containment Activity:

Two issues: Contamination and TM Hickeys
CTS pulled the coil family trees for the following stock-cards: 144067-, 132342-, 141323All lifts from these stock-cards that were still in the inventory at Gonvauto and Gestamp
were blocked due scattered contamination from a roll polyester urethane roll between
the plating cells. CTS approved material from 141323-02B, 144067-06B/-04B/-02B as
scrap. All other lifts from these stock-cards were released and used with the exception of
the following three.
132342-04B/-05A, 141323-02B: This material was flagged as pending for a 76.8 TM
Hickey
Problem-Solving Tool Used:
CTS review of the blocked lifts and AK mainframe to identify the coil family tree.
The AK lab performed SEM analysis of contamination particles and matched them to the
10 squeegee rolls in between the plating cells. There are 126 of these polyester Urethane
rolls in the EGL process.
D4.: Root Cause:
There were two issues; One was TM Hickeys due to missing chrome on a roll that caused
a 76.8 repeat. The other issue was due to a deteriorating Polyester Urethane roll that

FORM DESCRIPTION
Corrective Action Request (CAR)

Page 2 of 3
Form No.: F-034
Revision: 1
Release: 19-Dec-11

8-Discipline Steps
caused contamination between the plating cells. This material was 85% coated over in the
zinc plating process. Research report issued 11/13/14
Contamination was caused by worn rolls in the plating section of the EG Line. Two of the
movable squeegee rolls #9 and #18 were noted to be badly worn and grooved during the
maintenance outage.

Root Cause of non-detection:

Due to these marks being so light they were not picked-up by the inspector or on the
Cognex automated inspection camera review or the Precision Strip slitting inspectors who
perform the final inspection.

D5.: Corrective Action:

Contamination: 107 of the 126 Polyester Urethane rolls have been replaced since 7/29
during four different maintenance outages.
TM Hickey repeats: AK steel is proposing the development of boundary samples using
varying severity of marks in flat and formed panels. We will collect and coordinate the
painting of boundary samples to determine Fit-For-Use using the new paint system at
BMW. 5 samples of varying severity will be collected and marked 1 through 5 with 5 being
the worst. AK Steel is requesting that these marks be painted in the BMW paint line to
determine boundary samples for use at AK Steel and Gestamp.

D6.: Verification of Corrective Action:

Proposal to be reviewed at Gestamp during the 12/17/14 meeting with BWM.
D7.: Preventive Action:
A quality alert was sent to PRMD on 12/5/14 to enhanced inspect and hold any marks for
further review by CTS and the customer. Samples of both conditions were reviewed by the
EGL and PRMD inspectors.
Benefits of Action Taken:
Target Date for
Completion: 10/30/14

Scheduled
Follow-up Date: 10/23/14

Closed
Date:

FORM DESCRIPTION
Corrective Action Request (CAR)

Page 3 of 3
Form No.: F-034
Revision: 1
Release: 19-Dec-11

8-Discipline Steps
D8.: Team Recognition:
Larry Davis, Daryl Underwood, Bill Belding, Chris Newkirk
Management Approvals:

Before you submit the CAR-8D, please ensure the following have been addressed or considered.

Considerations for CAR-8D closure (check):

Can this corrective action be applied to similar products or processes (if yes,
describe & show evidence of applicability. If no, describe reason)?
If a mistake proofing activity was defined can it be applied to similar products or
processes (if yes, describe & show evidence of applicability. If no, describe
reason)?
Are there any revisions to be made to IMS documents (submit revision)?
Are there updates required to the FMEA, Control Plan, Inspection Plans/Reports
(submit revisions)?
Do the actions meet the Containment release requirements (if no, describe
reason)?
Has training occurred to employees & has the verification been confirmed that the
employees trained understood the directive?
Has the surface data, destruct or dimensional data been review & is stable (if no,
describe)?
Other (explain):

Yes

No

N/A