|
Dhr - there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.Failure analysis - the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.Visual inspection utilizing unaided eye found that the unit was received disassembled and had a cracked sleeve along the based of the flanged nyliner.Upon inspection, the base of the flanged nyliner was compressed and had an od that was wider than the top of the hudson end, causing it to protrude and cut into the sleeve.Ifu testing was performed after the unit was re-assembled.It was re-assembled using the original nyliner, but the unit would not rotate freely.When re-assembled with a new nyliner, it functioned as intended.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release: the unit was found to not perform as intended with the original flanged nyliner, the original nyliner in the manufactured product is what cause the unit to break apart.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit did not work as intended, and the complaint condition of breaking was confirmed.The complaint could be verified through failure analysis.Root cause - the failure analyst noted in their investigation that the flanged nyliner is the root cause of the perforator breaking.However, the root cause of failure to disengage is unconfirmed and it is not possible to know what cause the failure to disengage.The nyliner causing the breakage would not have caused the unit to fail to disengage, per the analyst, it would have made it easier to stop the unit due to the resistance it was causing.The possible root cause for the failure to disengage would be user misuse, since other manufacturing defects were eliminated.
|