5D Presentation Training

Writing a 5D
Using a few important pieces of information from

the problem solving analysis to write a document
that is easy to understand
5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 1 Date Created: 7/12/2006

WHAT IS A 5D:
• Eight Disciplines (8Ds) Problem Solving is a method developed at Ford Motor Company
in 1987 and used to approach and to resolve problems. A 5D is an abbreviated version
used for management review, but does not take the place of 8Ds. The 5D disciplines are:
– D1: Describe the Problem: Specify the problem by identifying in quantifiable terms
the who, what, where, when, why, how, and how many (5W2H) for the problem.
– D2: Develop Interim Containment Plan: Define and implement containment actions
to isolate the problem from any customer.
– D3 and D3A: Determine and Verify Root Causes and Escape Points: Identify all
applicable causes that could explain why the problem has occurred. Also identify why
the problem was not noticed at the time it occurred. All causes shall be verified or
proved. One can use the Drill Down Tree and five strategies to determine root causes.
– D4: Define and Implement Corrective Actions: Define and Implement the best
corrective actions.
– D5: Prevent Recurrence / System Problems: Modify the management systems,
operation systems, practices, and procedures to prevent recurrence of this and similar
problems.

KEY COMPONENTS OF A 5D – D1 thru D5
Issue Title: Champion:
Source: Team:
Issue D1 – First sentence should concisely describe the object and defect. Then add detail that describe the
Description:
problem in quantifiable terms the who, what, where, when, why, and how many of the problem
Containment: D2 – Define and implement containment actions to isolate the problem from any customer
Root Cause: D3 – Identify all possible causes that explain why the problem has occurred. The team can use
drill down tree or alternative method; 5W2H, Ishikawa diagrams to map potential RC.
Corrective D4 –Define and Implement the best corrective actions.
Action:
Workplan: Step Date Lead
D3A – Workplan steps to valid any potential causes listed as “root cause”. The team can use any of
Risk Projections: Refer to FAP 03-201
the 5 problem solving strategies to verify the potentialforroot cause
appropriate risk projections.
Global 8D #: FAP
07-004 states to
locate the global 8D
Prevent # here
Action: D5 – Modify the management systems, operation systems, practices, and procedures to prevent
recurrence of this and similar problems
Risk Post-OK2B Global 8D #:
Projections Date Revised:

WHY IS A GOOD 5D IMPORTANT:
• A 5D is an abbreviated version used for management review, but does not take
the place of 8Ds. A good 5D is critical because:
1. It provides a concise problems description and status to senior management.

2. It explains the teams problem solving approach/logic and next steps
3. Properly explained, it provides the team the time to complete the problem
solving process. Improperly completed or explained and it leads to more
work !!!!!!!
4. It is a demonstration of competency/professionalism of the team
5. It provides a close loop presentation (root cause to permanent corrective
action/problem avoidance)
6. Lastly, it explains the physics of the failure mode

General Writing Guidelines for 5Ds
• 5D is a summary of the problem solving process, progress and/or root cause

outcome. It is NOT a long story, executives expect a logical summary of the
problem solving method and status, NOT a thesis paper!
• A 5D should:
– Include key specifics, dates, AIMs numbers, Vehicle numbers, suppliers, etc.
– There should be no ambiguity or opinions, just provide facts and planned actions.
– Provide the problem solving logic (the approach used to determine root cause)
– Write clearly and concisely, don’t add extra words.
– 5D should be able to be understood without being presented.
– If items are unknown such as the containment or root cause:
» Provide potential root causes aligned with problem solving method
» Provide probability of potential root causes.
» Provide clear work plan actions, dates and action owners.
– A 5D should not be closed until the physics of the failure mode are understood.
D1 – Issue Description
• Concisely describe the object and the defect in the first sentence. Give management a
clear and simple idea of issue. Keep it short and simple!
• Then on the following sentences list the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How Big.
Include key specifics, dates, AIMs numbers, vehicle numbers, suppliers, etc.
• Use the drill down tree to narrow down where the problem is occurring. Keep asking
“where”
– Good Example
» Radio button broke off when changing the radio station. <TT> Voice of the
Customer Fleet Vehicle 305W343 with 22,546 miles. Part retrieved had julian
production date of July 23rd. Additional vehicles were checked and two
additional failed parts were found with Julian dates of July 27 th and 31st. The
radio with the button was returned to supplier, Johnson Inc. located in Santa
Fe Mexico.
– Bad Example
» Vehicle found with bad radio at Dearborn Truck plant.
Lack of detail – Does not describe the “Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How Big”

D2 – Containment
• Containment can be for the potential or actual root causes and

for the symptoms. The containment should consider specific customer issue being identified
(i.e. Broke radio button). It should include anything that might help with containment from
the final customer and work back from the assembly plant to the source.
Good Example for issue of Radio Button breaking
All failures occurred on parts with Julian dates July 23-31st.

Tier 2 Supplier: 100% inspection by applying a 10 Newton torque and inspect for function.
Tier 1 Supplier: 100% inspection by applying a 10 Newton torque and inspect for function.
Ford Assembly: Apply 10Nm torque using assembly tool, inspect for function
Bad Example (What is wrong with this example?)
1. 100% visual inspection at assembly plant.
Does not describe the part or defect being inspected and does not describe the
containment at each stage of the process. (e.g. Tier 1, Tier 2, Customer, etc.)

D3 – Root Cause
• Root cause theories should be listed if the actual root cause is not yet understood.
• Do NOT restate the issue description.
• Root cause information can be gathered from tools such as the Drill Down Tree, Physics,
Physical Functional Diagram, subject matter experts, lap analysis, Boundary Diagrams, P
Diagrams, DOE analysis, experiments, and Fishbone.
• Write the root cause theories clearly and concisely.
Good Example
• RC1: Melt temperature of plastic in injection mold equipment (60%)
• RC2: Tooling flaw allowing stress riser at attachment to radio (20%)
• RC3: Operator abuse (10%)
Bad Examples (What is wrong with these examples?)

• Broken radio buttons. Broken buttons found at supplier, Dearborn Truck and in the field.
Does not describe root cause – This is just repeating the issue description.
D3A – Work Plan
Strategy First, then Tactics, then Tools
(Reference Strategic Problem Solving Course 018210 or Green Belt Training)
1. The work plan needs to address each of the potential root causes. The actions should
use the problem solving method chosen to eliminate each of the potential root causes
and identify the actual root cause.
– RC1: Action Plan
• Review injection mold temperatures during July.
• Inspect tooling
• Review tooling maintenance logs during July.
• One part provided to central labs for material analysis and failure mode
determination
• Discuss failure with driver of VOCF vehicle
• Complete process audit assure assembly process is being completed properly.

D4 – Corrective Action
• List the specific actions that were taken to address the root cause.
Good Example
• Modified mold temperature from 300 degrees to new temperature of 350
degrees.
Bad Example
• Trained the operator to use the correct molding parameters for making the radio
button.
No detail on the new parameter setting.

D5 – Prevent Action
• List the actions that will
1. Make sure specific part will never have the issue again.
2. Make sure all similar processes or designs are fixed.
3. Make sure all future launches will not have this issue.
Good Example
1. Making sure specific part will never have issue again (consider what engineering disciplines need to get
update):
• PFMEA updated to include the failure mode of too low or too high of a mold temperatures for the radio
button.
• PFMEA updated to include thermocouple with error proofing to the mold so parts can only be made at
the correct temperature.
• Mold temperature check added to the setup check sheet and added a supervisor sign off.
• Updated control plan to include a check of the radio button torque to failure at setup and once per shift.
2. Making sure all similar processes or designs are fixed.
• Completed experiment on Fusion and Focus products to optimize radio button process parameters.
3. Make sure all future launches will not have this issue.
• Updated the SDS to include a torque to failure requirement of 20 NM for all future radio buttons.
• Launch Checklist updated to include a molding process parameter Design of Experiments during the
launch of any new radio buttons.
Bad Example
Updated PFMEA to include mold temperatures and error proofing. Setup check sheet updated to check mold
temperature and added supervisor sign off. Control plan updated to include torque to failure check every shift.
Does NOT address similar parts and does not address parts that will be launched in the future!

Exercise
For each section of the 5D you will be given detailed information.
Choose the appropriate information and document it on the 5D.
You can also reference the 6-panel.

D1 – Issue Description

D1 Issue Description: Case of the leaking torque convertor
2/9/2017: Dearborn Truck found oil leaks on the 5R110 Torque Convertors at the seam weld after driving
the trucks ½ mile. Two 4x2 and 1 4x4 trucks were found with the leak. Torque convertor is supplied by
Van Dyke transmission plant. Van Dyke build dates for the torque convertors was 2/1, 2/1, and 2/2.
Impeller Housing Side Front Cover Side
Oil leak at
seam weld
Studs that bolt to
engine flex plate.
Document the appropriate information in the issue description section of the 5D on the following page.

Exercise – Fill out Issue Description using info from previous page.
Issue Title: Champion:
Source: Team:
Issue
Description:
Containment:
Root Cause:
Corrective Action:
Prevent Action:
Risk Projections Post-OK2B Global 8D #:

Date Revised:

D2 – Containment

D2 – Containment (Leaking Torque Convertor)
2/10/2017:
• Van Dyke (supplier): 100% Helium leak test implemented. Equipment purchased, gauge
calibration and R&R study completed. Gauge is good.
• Van Dyke (supplier): 100% visual inspection for oil at the seam weld after oil fill implemented.
• Dearborn Truck: 100% visual inspection after driving vehicle over test track implemented
Van Dyke (Supplier) Process Flow
45 45
Weld F1 F2
Sample
Inspect
Re-Work NOK
100% Helium Leak Test Implemented 50 55 Scrap
OK
NOK
Document the appropriate Scrap 60 Alignment and End Clearance
information in the OK
containment section of the
NOK
5D on the following page. 65A 65B 65C Oil Fill and Balance
100% Visual Inspection for Oil Leak Implemented 70

Exercise – Fill out Containment using info from previous page.
Issue Title: 2017 5R10 Torque Convertor Leak Champion: L Fredrickson
Source: Dearborn Truck Plant after Vehicle Operation. Team: John Doe, Ernie Johnson, Freddie Mack, Allan Greenspan
Issue Torque Convertor oil leak at the seam weld after driving the vehicle.
5R110 F150 Torque Convertors on two 4x4 and one 4x2 trucks built on 2/9/2017 at Dearborn Truck were found with the issue after driving the vehicles ½ mile. Torque convertors were built
Description: by Van Dyke Transmission Plant on 2/1, 2/1, and 2,2.
(KPOV not known)
Containment:
Root Cause:
Corrective Action:
Prevent Action:
Risk Projections Post-OK2B Global 8D #: G2295867

Date Revised: 2/9/15
Major

D3 – Root Cause
(Under Investigation)

D3 – Root Cause
• 2/10/2017: Dearborn Truck Plant returns the 3 leaking parts along with 3 parts that did not leak.
Team suspects three potential causes of the leak. They make a rough estimate the likelihood for each
of the following causes is 15%, 15%, and 70% respectively.
1. Excessive oil pressure in the torque convertor caused weld to fail and part to leak.
2. Porosity in the weld allowed oil to leak.
3. Poor weld with low strength fractured during usage allowing oil to leak.
• There are two fixtures that are used to weld the parts and team wants to find out which fixture built
the three leaking parts and which one built the three good parts.
Drill Down Tree Oil Leak at Seam Weld
Strategic Split Evidence

Failure Mode High Oil Low Weld Weld Complete tear down of 3
Pressure Strength Porosity leaking parts and 3 good parts
to determine failure mode.
Determine which fixtures
Weld Fixture Random Weld Weld
leaking parts and good parts
Fixture 1 Fixture 2
were built on.
Document the appropriate information in the Root
Cause section of the 5D on the following page.
Exercise – Fill out Root Cause using info from previous page.
(KPOV not known)
Containment: 2/10/2017:
Van Dyke: 100% helium leak test implemented. Measurement Systems Analysis successfully completed.
Van Dyke: 100% visual inspection for oil at the seam weld after oil fill implemented.
Dearborn Truck: 100% visual inspection after driving vehicle over test track implemented.
Root Cause:
Corrective Action:
2/11/2017 Brian Shuster
2/11/2017 Mark Gutting

Prevent Action:

Major

D3A – Work Plan

D3A – Work Plan
2/10/2017:
1. Drill Down Tree Row 1: The team plans to cross section the welds of the 3 leaking parts along with
the 3 non-leaking parts to determine if the leak was due to a poor weld or weld porosity. This will
determine the failure mode on the first stage of the drill down tree. (Strategies: Y to X and Contrast
and Convergence). Brian Schuster will complete the work by 2/11/2017.
2. Drill Down Tree Row 2: The team wants to determine if the parts were built on weld fixture 1 or weld
fixture 2. If the failure mode is either low weld strength or weld porosity looking at the differences is
parts manufactured on these two fixtures might provide information on the root cause. This will
also determine the path on the Drill Down Tree (Strategy: Contrast and Convergence). Mark Gutting
will complete work by 2/11/2017.
3. If analysis shows it is a welding issue consider completing DOE to optimize parameters. If required
Mark Gutting could complete the DOE by 2/12/2017.
Oil Leak at Seam Weld
Strategic Split Evidence

Failure Mode High Oil Low Weld Weld Complete tear down of 3
Pressure Strength Porosity leaking parts and 3 good parts
to determine failure mode.
Both Weld Weld Determine which fixtures
Weld Fixture Fixtures Fixture 1 Fixture 2 leaking parts and good parts
Document the appropriate information in the were built on. Review weld
Work Plan section of the 5D on the following page. cross sections by Fixture.
Exercise – Fill out Work Plan using info from previous page.
(KPOV not known)
Root Cause: Potential Root Causes from Drill Down Tree

Excessive oil pressure in the torque convertor caused weld to fail and part to leak – 15%
Porosity in the weld allowed oil to leak – 15%
Poor weld with low strength fractured during usage allowing oil to leak – 70%
Corrective Action:
Prevent Action:

Major

D3 – Root Cause
(Physics Understood)

D3 – Root Cause
• 2/11/2017: Analysis of returned parts showed welds cracked allowing oil to leak. No signs of
porosity. The weld leg lengths of the leaking parts was 1.1, 1.4. and 0.9 mm and for the good parts it
was 2.2, 2.4, and 2.0 mm. The failed parts all came from fixture 2 and good parts were from fixture 1.
• 2/11/2017: Weld fixture analyzed and determined that fallout rate was higher on welder 2 and weld
leg lengths were shorter. Reviewing process showed that the weld fixture 2 was setup higher limiting
the weld energy going into the cover and reducing the weld leg length. Issue corrected.
• 2/12/2017: DOE completed to optimize process parameters. Previous settings of 300 amps and a
welding tip to work distance of 20 mm changed to 350 amps and 14 mm respectively.
Cross Section of Failed Part
Failed Part Good Part Weld

Oil
Tactical Assessment:
• Oil pressure causes the
Weld Length (KPOV) Weld Length (KPOV) assembly to expand enough
for a weak weld to crack.
• Oil leaks through the crack

Drill Down Tree
D3 – Root Cause Oil Leak at Seam Weld

Evidence
Strategic Split
Cross sectional analysis showed
Failure Mode High Oil Low Weld Weld low weld penetration on leaking
Pressure Penetration Porosity
parts.
KPOV = Weld Leg length Fixture 2 Weld leg lengths were
shorter.
Both Weld Weld Three leakers were built on fixture 2
Weld Fixture Fixtures Fixture 1 Fixture 2 and non-leakers built on fixture 1.
Fixture 2 miss-adjusted by 5 mm.
Cover
Welding torch directing all

energy into housing and
5 mm very little into the cover.
Fixture 2 was miss-adjusted causing Impeller
the welding torch to be too high Housing
creating the short weld leg length.
Fixture 1 Fixture 2

Drill Down Tree
D3 – Root Cause Oil Leak at Seam Weld Evidence

Strategic Split Cross sectional analysis
Failure Mode High Oil Low Weld Weld showed low weld penetration
Pressure Penetration Porosity on leaking parts.
KPOV = Weld Leg length Weld leg lengths were significantly

shorter on parts built on fixture 2.
Both Weld Weld Three leakers were built on fixture
Weld Fixture Fixtures Fixture 1 Fixture 2 2 and non-leakers built on fixture 1.
DOE showed an interaction with
Process Tip to Work Welder Interaction optimal parameters of 14 mm for
Parameters Distance Amperage tip to work distance and 350 amps.
Solution: Run process at 350 amps, Tip to work

Distance at 14 mm, and correct fixture 2 height.
Tip to Work Distance

Weld Length (KPOV) 14 mm 20 mm
300 2.1, 2.1 1.6, 1.7

Amps
2.2, 2.0 1.8 1.8

350 2.6, 2.7 1.7, 1.9
2.6, 2.7 2.0, 1.7

Exercise – Fill out Root Cause using info from previous page.
(KPOV = Weld Leg Length)
Van Dyke: Helium leak test equipment purchased, gauge calibration and R&R study completed.
Van Dyke: 100% visual inspection for oil at the seam weld after oil fill
Dearborn Truck: 100% visual inspection after driving vehicle over test track.
Root Cause:
Corrective Action:
Y to X and contrast and convergence strategy

1. Cross section three leaking and three non leaking parts and determine failure mode. - Analysis of returned parts showed welds cracked 2/11/2017 Brian Shuster
allowing oil to leak. No signs of porosity. The weld leg lengths of the leaking parts was 1.1, 1.4. and 0.9 mm and for the good parts it was
2.2, 2.4, and 2.0 mm.
2. Review leaking and non leaking parts to determine which fixture they were built on. Review fixture 1 and fixture 2. – Failed parts were all 2/11/2017 Mark Gutting
built on fixture 2. Fixture 2 was setup to the incorrect height causing a poor weld.
3. Depending upon cross section analysis consider a DOE to investigate welding parameter optimization. – DOE showed interaction with
optimal parameters of 14 mm for tip to work distance and 350 amps.
Prevent Action:

Major


1. Weld fixture 2 height corrected – 2/13/2017
2. Welding parameters set to 350 amps and a Tip to Work Distance of 14 mm – 2/14/2017
Before Improvements After Improvements

Weld nozzle
Weld nozzle pointed at Cover &
pointed at Housing Housing.
Cover
Impeller
Housing
Corrected fixture height
Before DPMO = 821,110 After DPMO = 0

Process Capability Report for Weld Leg Length
LSL
Process Data
LSL 2.1
Target *
USL *
Sample Mean 2.65086
Sample N 125
StDev(Overall) 0.0764702
StDev(Within) 0.0792537
Overall Capability
Pp *
PPL 2.40
PPU *
Ppk 2.40
Cpm *
2.125 2.250 2.375 2.500 2.625 2.750 2.875

Exercise – Fill out Corrective Action using info from previous page.
Root Cause: 1. Incorrect welding fixture height reduced the weld energy being input into the cover causing a short weld leg length. Oil pressure during operation causes the weak weld to break and
allowing oil to leak.
2. Lack of parameter optimization at launch led to process being run at 300 amps and tip to work distance of 20 mm resulting in shorter weld leg lengths which are weaker.
Corrective Action:

2.2, 2.4, and 2.0 mm.
3. Depending upon cross section analysis consider a DOE to investigate welding parameter optimization. – DOE showed interaction with 2/12/2017 Mark Gutting
Prevent Action:

Major

D5 – Prevent Reoccurrence

D5 – Prevent Action
Actions for 5R110 Torque Convertor

1. Updated PFMEA to include weld crack failure mode and having a setup check sheet
to check for fixture height, tip to work distance (14 mm), and 350 amps. Added
supervisor signoff to setup check sheet.
2. Updated work instructions and job setup instructions to verify fixture height, tip to
work distance (14 mm), and 350 amps.
Action to prevent problem on other Torque Convertors

3. Complete DOE to optimize amperage, tip to work distance, and fixture height on the
F150 Raptor torque convertor.
Action to prevent problem on all future Torque Convertors

4. Add the completion of a Design of Experiments to the Launch Checklist to ensure
parameters are optimized for all future products during the development stage.

Exercise – Fill out Prevent Action using info from previous page.
Van Dyke: Helium leak test equipment purchased, gauge calibration and R&R study completed.
Van Dyke: 100% visual inspection for oil at the seam weld after oil fill
Dearborn Truck: 100% visual inspection after driving vehicle over test track.
Root Cause: 1. Incorrect welding fixture height reduced the weld energy being input into the cover causing a short weld leg length. Oil pressure during operation causes the weak weld to break and
allowing oil to leak.
2. Lack of parameter optimization at launch led to process being run at 300 amps and tip to work distance of 20 mm resulting in shorter weld leg lengths which are weaker.
Corrective Action: 1. Weld fixture height for fixture 2 was corrected – 2/13/2017
2. Tip to work distance changed to 14 mm and amperage set to 350 – 2/14/2017

2.2, 2.4, and 2.0 mm.
3. Depending upon cross section analysis consider a DOE to investigate welding parameter optimization. – DOE showed interaction with
Prevent Action:

Major

Questions

Back-up
Checklist for Closure of 5D
D1 First sentence concisely describes the object and the defect.

Issue Description Following sentences include the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How Big.
Include key specifics, dates, AIMs numbers, vehicle numbers, suppliers, etc.
D2 Describes specific containment at each stage of the process.
Containment (e.g. tier 2, tier 1, Ford Engine Plant, and Ford Assembly Plant)
D3 Describes either the Root Cause or the Root Cause Theories.
Root Cause Does NOT re-state the issue description or have other irrelevant information!
D3A Includes actions to determine the correct path on the drill down tree to lead to the root
Work Plan cause and understanding of the physics.
References which of the five strategies being used.
D4 Specific actions that addressed the root cause.
Corrective
Actions
D5 1. Describes actions to make sure specific part will never have the issue again.
Prevent Actions 2. Addresses all similar processes or designs.
3. Updates to corporate knowledge and system to make sure all future launches will
not have the issue.

5D Presentation Training

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

5D Presentation Training

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

5D Presentation Training

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing a 5D

Using a few important pieces of information from

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 1 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 2 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Workplan: Step Date Lead

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 3 Date Created: 7/12/2006

1. It provides a concise problems description and status to senior management.

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 4 Date Created: 7/12/2006

• 5D is a summary of the problem solving process, progress and/or root cause

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 6 Date Created: 7/12/2006

• Containment can be for the potential or actual root causes and

Good Example for issue of Radio Button breaking

All failures occurred on parts with Julian dates July 23-31st.

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 7 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Bad Examples (What is wrong with these examples?)

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 9 Date Created: 7/12/2006

No detail on the new parameter setting.

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 10 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 11 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 12 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 13 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Impeller Housing Side Front Cover Side

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 14 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Workplan: Step Date Lead

Risk Projections Post-OK2B Global 8D #:

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 15 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 16 Date Created: 7/12/2006

100% Visual Inspection for Oil Leak Implemented 70

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 17 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Workplan: Step Date Lead

Risk Projections Post-OK2B Global 8D #: G2295867

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 18 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 19 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Drill Down Tree Oil Leak at Seam Weld

Strategic Split Evidence

Workplan: Step Date Lead

2/11/2017 Brian Shuster

2/11/2017 Mark Gutting

Risk Projections Post-OK2B Global 8D #: G2295867

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 21 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 22 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Strategic Split Evidence

Root Cause: Potential Root Causes from Drill Down Tree

Workplan: Step Date Lead

Risk Projections Post-OK2B Global 8D #: G2295867

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 24 Date Created: 7/12/2006

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 25 Date Created: 7/12/2006

Cross Section of Failed Part

Failed Part Good Part Weld

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 26 Date Created: 7/12/2006

D3 – Root Cause Oil Leak at Seam Weld

Welding torch directing all

5D Template with G8Dv3.ppt Slide 27 Date Created: 7/12/2006

D3 – Root Cause Oil Leak at Seam Weld Evidence

KPOV = Weld Leg length Weld leg lengths were significantly

Solution: Run process at 350 amps, Tip to work

Tip to Work Distance

300 2.1, 2.1 1.6, 1.7