Process map / flow chart for QA/QC newb

[ValveNerd]

Greetings,

I am wodering if anyone would be willing to share a flow chart / process map for a valve production facility. I am implementing a QC system at a manufacturer in China that does not currently have one that meets ISO and need to create one that goes all the way from sales thru shipping.

I am well versed in ISO 9000 Quality management but I am inexperienced in valve production. I understand the basics but in trying to put together a detailed process map I am at a disadvantage, especially as I'm going to be traveling to the factory next week.

The biggest issue I have is knowing where to place Quality inspections, and which inspections are applicable in which stage of production. This manufacturer does not do their own casting but will be doing regular inspection of the foundry, so if necessary inspections are needed there inclusion would be helpful.

The company I work for is trying to meet API600 at this new facility and my understanding of API, ASME, and ANSI is still pretty limited.

I realize sharing an actual company document may be a bit much to ask but it would be of great help, perhaps a generic one would work? The document I am trying to create is to go from Sales all the way to packaging so for a green thumb in the valve world it feels a bit overwhelming.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

-NK

 

[gerhardl]

Try this line of thought:

A modern QA system is largely about getting all people involved to take responsibility and understand the process of creating an end result (a product) that will fulfill all demands at expected function and durabillity.

This main framework of a QA system and the general understanding of this philosophy must be present before a sensible QC system (as a tool) will give full effect.

A QC system within the QA-total system has, varying to QA-certifying system and product necessary certification and standard level, some obligatory end-tests, and some obligatory engineering and constructional requirements to fulfill that has to be implemented in the QC system.

The question to ask then is not what others have done, but more what is already present practice of QC (make a registration at site) and what end product requirements to be fulfilled (market/customer demands), and what is known about reoccuring claim and faults?

A QC system has the purpose of creating good endproducts and make the QA system work, not creating extra unecessary administration work. This said though, a high level of material intake control, production tool accuracy, measurement and test tool accuracy, total working force (up to and including management) skill and knowledge must be included.

This wuold, in principle, be common for any producing factory.

For valve production a 100% end test with inspection and function and pressure test (according to given standards) should be considered included.

I hope that this general view will help you get all the details in place once you get there.

Good luck!

 

[ValveNerd]

Gerhard,

Thanks so much for your response. The thing is that I understand the purpose and implementation of a QA/QC system. The things I am looking to find out are the specific tests that are required in the industry. I know they are specified in API, ASME, ANSI etc. But as someone new to the biz I was hoping to get a jump start on exactly which tests are needed and at what stage they should be performed.

I know that there is a hydro test and an air test that is always performed at the end of assembly. It's the other tests (spectral, xray, chem comp, physical properties like hardness) that I'm wondering about. Both where in the process they should be performed, who should be responsible for them (foundry, productio) and if possible what the spec is that needs to be followed as in what clause in which specification outlines the necessary procedures and sample sizes etc.

This is all because I am trying to make an outline of what I am looking for before I get there in order to lessen the amount of research I will have to do once I get there (research in regards to the specs of testing, which depts should be responsible, etc). Being prepared is especially important due to the language barrier.

perhaps this better explains my needs. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated.

thanks,

NK

 

[ValveNerd]

PS - Perhaps in the subjct I should have said valve QA newb. As it is the specifics of the valve industry and its testing procedures that I'm trying to get a handle on.

 

[dcasto]

Get a copy of API 600. Then go through each section and ask your management and process team "How are we going to document that we comply with this section" Then map out through the process where that documentation of compliance will come from (WHO, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW).

I like to take standards and do this. Take each section and create a policy that rephases the standard and say you will do it. Then create a proceedure that state WHO, When, Where, and HOW you will comply and then add a section for actions taken when non compliance is discovered, and finally the control of QA/QC documents generated.

 

[gerhardl]

OK.

1. Highlight intake requirements and control from subsuppliers. Specify requirements for certified material/product quality and composition from subsuppliers. Be sure to test adequatly by intake control, and return if not satisfactorily.

Reason: Material default to be sorted out earliest possible.

(The worldwide market has seen all variations on cheating on material certificates and documentqation, and materials supplied in lower or other types and grades than specified, with casting or product tolerances varying out of specification, coarser surfaces than specified, with hidden or clear casting or material faults etc,- and so on also for non-metallic products and components)

2. The specific tests you ask for in production (for instance welding tests if welded construction) will either be described following advice from decasto, or not be required.

Reason: Do what is necessary, but not more.

3. Again, depending on type of product (valvetype, size, application, pressure class etc.) different byers may demand or wish to specify extra tests, or test may be required for certain markets, countries or applications.

If company policy, action to be taken: possibility to do extra tests to be established if not existing. Outside (subsuppliers)or inside factory by own or hired specialists. The normal existing production process will in all probability give a clear answer where in the process the tests should be taken.

 

[daharvlv]

Hi

I previously worked for a valve manufacturer.
Whilst fully enodrsing philosophy of self responsibility, it has to apply all the way back down the manufacturing chain. Bona fides of suppliers should be established using approprate risk assesment techniques (always taking as a minimum the standards specified by the appropriate codes).
This may necessitate enhanced quality control points which may be reviewed when the suppliers demonstrate that they can do what they say they can do.
Consider material analysis verification and NDT of castings, gaskets etc at source. Never make assumptions, I have witnessed stress cracks in cold drawn bar stock, spring relaxation due to inadequate tempering, you name it, it can go wrong. The risk assessment will however identify where to focus attention. Documents are as valuable/useful as the organisation that generate them.
Consider Hydrostatic testing of machined pressure bearing parts before assembly. It is often difficult or impossible for manufacturers to simulate actual working conditions (i.e. low volume functional test of safety valves) so any final functional tests should be verified not only for functionallity but also test methodogy and even machining tolerances. Having verified manufacturing process, ensure it has been transported then installed correctly (some people leave protective caps on connection ports or fit them backwards).
Finally, and before any of the above, many problems start with sizing/selection issues in the first place.
Involve as many interested parties in the risk assessment as possible (manufacturers, installers maintenence etc).

 

[sterl]

As to Valve Quality Assurance Philosophies:

Look up UL & CSA testing requirements for valves and pressure containing fittings. Often your proof of design and your very last production tests are going to look a whole lot similar. If safety or relief is involved, check out the National Board and the NRC test/screen requirements. The FCI and the MSSP both have some QA oriented specifications as well..But consider:

Specification is largely an expedient way of communicating "customer requirement". Its marketing's role to deliver the end product's customer requirement, they need to be a driving force behind quality. And Sell Price is a given: Don't let it become an only.

For incoming materials: Third party confirmation on material content and physical properties will screen a list of potential vendors to those who know what they're doing and why; and those who don't. Often, this will be a one on one fit with procured item. Unless the vendor demonstrates a huge alternate advantage, don't start working with them to develop a (near) equivalent. The result almost always is you learn why their process is compromised and why they won't invest in upgrading it.

I was OUAT in charge of the "finished goods" test lab at a major PC component manufacturer...They called me the "junk man" cause everything they sent in for testing, I sent back in 4-separate boxes of loose pieces, along with a report. I would get prototype products; series products that had occasional deviations; products that repeatedly developed a pattern of deviation after an interval of service; products for comparison with competitive products; and so on. Often this was because the "field" end did not want to go see "deviant" product in or just out of service; and the RMA process simply recovered pieces and confirmed transaction, there was no tracing of repeated problems or issues. These are mistakes: anything that is returned from service represents a deviance of some sort, particularly with an "engineered" product; and the mismatch of product and application is just as often consequence of weakness in the product literature as it is misunderstanding of the application requirements.

As a control valve manufacturer: The only point at which we tested for pressure containment, pressure definition (seat leakage)and moving part confirmation was at final assembly. We only tested parts with flow or pressure instruments when they were sold as parts...We did lots of machining and finish measurements prior to that, but most of it was applied to QC-selects via comparators. We did enforce that QC handle every such sample with their fingers...This caught a lot of small finish or deburring deviations that you would never catch on a comparator.

That meant the assemblers were highly trained and to some degree problem solvers. Squared up the rate for machinists and bolt twisters in the same shop.

And our biggest internal deviations were in the "soft parts" and permanent joining areas: Welding and weld lathes; ultrasonic and friction welds; permanent subassemblies of engineered plastics and similar; machining of PTFE and similar stock; and insertion and assembly control of packings and seats.

Hope this of some help.

 

[caihui]

I'm working in valve for 5 to 6 year. I think QA system and file is very long but QC is easy. It's can be 4 steps.
1. Raw material control. (you can follow the material STD or ANSI B16.34, MSS, for chemical, machine, X-ray, MT, PT and so on).
2. Process control. Machine, first check, middle check, end check. (here included dimension check, surface check and something like that).
3. valve test (after assembled done shell, seat, function test per API 598 or API 6D or something like that)
4. finial inspection (nameplate, wooden case, shipping marking ect).
Hoping this can help you
If anything I can do for you, please send email to franciscai@sohu.com