1

FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

(FMEA)
ntroduction:
t is a method for analyzing potential potential reliability problems, early in the
development cycle, where it is easier to take actions to overcome these
issues, thereby enhancing reliability through design.
FMEA is used to identify potential failure modes, determine their effect on the
operation of the product, and identify actions to mitigate the failures. A crucial
step is anticipating what might go wrong with a product. While anticipating
every failure mode is not possible, the development team should formulate as
extensive a list of potential failure modes as possible.
2
%ypes of
FMEA:
System FMEA focuses on global system functions
Design FMEA (DFMEA) focuses on components and subsystems
!74.ess FMEA focuses on manufacturing and assembly processes
Se7;i.e FMEA focuses on service functions
S41twa7e FMEA focuses on software functions
3
esign Failure Mode Effects Analysis
(FMEA)
t is an application of FMEA method specifically for product design
t is a method used in engineering to document and explore ways that a product
design might fail in realworld use
4
!rimary
Objective
%he primary objective of a FMEA is to uncover potential failures associated with the
product that could cause:
!roduct malfunctions.
Shortened product life.
Safety hazards while using the product.
FMEAs should be used throughout the design process from !reliminary design
until the product goes into production.
5
%ypes of
DFMEA
%here are three types of FMEA
System FMEA
Sub System FMEA
Component FMEA
6
System
DFMEA
%he FMEA will always take the feed from the Boundary and ! (!arameter)
diagram.
%he ideal output from the boundary diagram will become the desired or required
function in the FMEA.
n the case of System FMEA, the cause will always be the inability to receive the
ideal input/interface function of the surrounding sub system.
7
Sub System
DFMEA
%here is little difference between the system FMEA and Sub System FMEA. n
the Sub system FMEA the cause of failures are component. Consider the same
%ransmission as a system and !lanetary system as a sub system, which as piston,
gears etc as components.
n this case, look up the boundary diagram, to get to ideal inputs and outputs. n
case of the planetary system we have, function as providing adequate gear ratio.
%he failure mode associated with this are as following
nadequate gear ratio
ntermittent gear ratio
No gear ratio
8
Component
FMEA
n the Component FMEA the cause of failures are specific design features or
geometry.
9
Steps to Conduct a
DFMEA
Step 1
Re;iew the designUse a blueprint or schematic of the design/product
Step 2
B7ainst47m p4tentiaI 1aiIu7e m4desReview existing documentation
Step 3
List p4tentiaI e11e.ts 41 1aiIu7e%here may be more than one for each
Step 4
Assign Se;e7ity 7ankingsBased on the severity of the consequences of
Step 5
lAssign O..u77en.e 7ankingsBased on how frequently the cause of the failure is
likely to occur.
CONTINUE . . .
10
Steps to Conduct a
FMEA
Step 6
Assign Dete.ti4n 7ankingsBased on the chances the failure will be detected prior
to the customer finding it.
Step 7
CaI.uIate the R!NSeverity x Occurrence x etection.
Step 8
De;eI4p the a.ti4n pIanefine who will do what by when.
Step 9
Take a.ti4nmplement the improvements identified by your FMEA team.
Step 10
CaI.uIate the 7esuIting R!NReevaluate each of the potential failures once
improvements have been made and determine their impact on the R!Ns.
11
Step : Review the esign
Reas4ns 147 the 7e;iew:
elp assure all team members are familiar with the product and its design.
dentify each of the main components of the design and determine the function or
functions of those components and interfaces between them.
Make sure you are studying all components defined in the scope of the FMEA.
Use a p7int 47 s.hemati. 147 the 7e;iew.
Add Reference Numbers to each component and interface.
T7y 4ut a p74t4type 47 sampIe.
nvite a subject matter expert to answer questions.
ocument the function(s) of each component and interface.
12
Step 2: Brainstorm !otential Failure Modes
C4nside7 p4tentiaI 1aiIu7e m4des 147 ea.h .4mp4nent and inte71a.e.
A potential failure mode represents any manner in which the product component
could fail to perform its intended function or functions.
Remember that many components will have more than one failure mode.
ocument each one. o not leave out a potential failure mode because it rarely
happens. on't take shortcuts here; this is the time to be thorough.
!7epa7e 147 the b7ainst47ming a.ti;ity.
Before you begin the brainstorming session, review documentation for clues about
potential failure modes.
Use customer complaints, warranty reports, and reports that identify things that
have gone wrong, such as hold tag reports, scrap, damage, and rework, as inputs
for the brainstorming activity.
Additionally, consider what may happen to the product under difficult usage
conditions and how the product might fail when it interacts with other products.
13
Step 3: List !otential Effects of Failure
The e11e.t is 7eIated di7e.tIy t4 the abiIity 41 that spe.i1i. .4mp4nent t4 pe7147m
its intended 1un.ti4n.
An effect is the impact a failure could make should it occur.
Some failures will have an effect on customers; others on the environment, the
process the product will be made on, and even the product itself.
The e11e.t sh4uId be stated in te7ms meaning1uI t4 p74du.t pe7147man.e. I1 the
e11e.ts a7e de1ined in gene7aI te7ms, it wiII be di11i.uIt t4 identi1y (and 7edu.e)
t7ue
p4tentiaI 7isks.
14
Step 4: Assign Severity Rankings
The 7anking s.aIes a7e missi4n .7iti.aI 147 the su..ess 41 a DFMEA be.ause they
estabIish the basis 147 dete7mining 7isk 41 4ne 1aiIu7e m4de and e11e.t 7eIati;e
t4 an4the7.
The same 7anking s.aIes 147 DFMEAs sh4uId be used .4nsistentIy th74ugh4ut
an 47ganizati4n. This wiII make it p4ssibIe t4 .4mpa7e the R!Ns 174m
di11e7ent FMEAs t4 4ne an4the7.
%he severity ranking is based on a relative scale ranging from to . A "
means the effect has a dangerously high severity leading to a hazard without
warning. Conversely, a severity ranking of " means the severity is extremely low.
%he scales provide a relative, not an absolute, scale.
See FMEA Checklists and Forms for an example FMEA Severity Ranking Scale.
CONTINUE . . .
15
Step 4: Assign Severity Rankings
The best way t4 .ust4mize a 7anking s.aIe is t4 sta7t with a standa7d gene7i.
s.aIe and then m4di1y it t4 be m47e meaning1uI t4 y4u7 47ganizati4n.
By adding organizationspecific examples to the ranking definitions, FMEA teams
will have an easier time using the scales. %he use of examples saves teams time
and improves the consistency of rankings from team to team.
As you add examples specific to your organization, consider adding several
columns with each column focused on a topic. One topic could provide descriptions
of severity levels for customer satisfaction failures and another for environmental,
health, and safety issues. owever, remember that each row should reflect the
same relative impact, or severity, on the organization or customer
See FMEA Checklists and Forms for an example of Custom FMEA Ranking
Scales. (Examples of custom scales for severity, occurrence, and detection
rankings are included in this Appendix.)
16
Step 5: Assign Occurrence Rankings
We need to know the potential cause to determine the occurrence ranking because,
just like the severity ranking is driven by the effect, the occurrence ranking is a
function of the cause.
%he occurrence ranking is based on the likelihood, or frequency, that the cause (or
mechanism of failure) will occur.
f we know the cause, we can better identify how frequently a specific mode of
failure will occur.
%he occurrence ranking scale, like the severity ranking, is on a relative scale from to
.
An occurrence ranking of " means the failure mode occurrence is very high; it
happens all of the time. Conversely, a " means the probability of occurrence is
remote.
See FMEA Checklists and Forms for an example FMEA Occurrence Ranking
Scale.
CONTINUE . . .
17
Step 5: Assign Occurrence Rankings
Your organization may need to customize the occurrence ranking scale to apply to
different levels or complexities of design. t is difficult to use the same scale for a
modular design, a complex design, and a custom design.
Some organizations develop three different occurrence ranking options (time
based, eventbased, and piecebased) and select the option that applies to the
design or product.
See FMEA Checklists and Forms for an examples of Custom FMEA Ranking
Scales (Examples of custom scales for severity, occurrence, and detection rankings
are included in this Appendix.)
18
Step 6: Assign etection Rankings
%o assign detection rankings, consider the design or productrelated controls already in
place for each failure mode and then assign a detection ranking to each control.
%hink of the detection ranking as an evaluation of the ability of the design controls
to prevent or detect the mechanism of failure.
!revention controls are always preferred over detection controls.
!revention controls prevent the cause or mechanism of failure or the failure mode
itself from occurring; they generally impact the frequency of occurrence. !revention
controls come in different forms and levels of effectiveness.
etection controls detect the cause, the mechanism of failure, or the failure mode
itself after the failure has occurred BU% before the product is released from the
design stage. A detection ranking of " means the chance of detecting a failure is
almost certain. Conversely, a " means the detection of a failure or mechanism of
failure is absolutely uncertain.
%o provide FMEA teams with meaningful examples of esign Controls, consider
adding examples tied to the etection Ranking scale for design related topics such
as:
esign Rules
FA/FM (design for assembly and design for manufacturability) ssues
Simulation and Verification %esting
19
Step 7: Calculate the R!N
%he R!N is the Risk !riority Number. %he R!N gives us a relative risk ranking.
%he higher the R!N, the higher the potential risk.
%he R!N is calculated by multiplying the three rankings together.
Multiply the Severity Ranking times the Occurrence Ranking times the etection
Ranking.
Calculate the R!N for each failure mode and effect.
Editorial Note: %he current FMEA Manual from AAG suggests only calculating the
R!N for the highest effect ranking for each failure mode. We do not agree with this
suggestion; we believe that if this suggestion is followed, it will be too easy to miss
the need for further improvement on a specific failure mode.
Since each of the three relative ranking scales ranges from to , the R!N will
always be between and . %he higher the R!N, the higher the relative risk.
%he R!N gives us an excellent tool to prioritize focused improvement efforts.
20
Step 8: evelop the Action !lan
%aking action means reducing the R!N. %he R!N can be reduced by lowering any of
the three rankings (severity, occurrence, or detection) individually or in combination
with one another.
A reduction in the Severity Ranking for a FMEA is often the most difficult to attain.
t usually requires a design change.
Reduction in the Occurrence Ranking is accomplished by removing or controlling
the potential causes or mechanisms of failure.
And a reduction in the etection Ranking is accomplished by adding or improving
prevention or detection controls.
What is considered an acceptable R!N? %he answer to that question depends on the
organization.
For example, an organization may decide any R!N above a maximum target of 2
presents an unacceptable risk and must be reduced. f so, then an action plan
identifying who will do what by when is needed.
21
Step 9: %ake Action
%he Action !lan outlines what steps are needed to implement the solution, who will do
them, and when they will be completed.
A simple solution will only need a Simple Action !lan while a complex solution needs
more thorough planning and documentation.
Most Action !lans identified during a FMEA will be of the simple "who, what, &
when category. Responsibilities and target completion dates for specific actions to
be taken are identified.
Sometimes, the Action !lans can trigger a fairly largescale project. f that happens,
conventional project management tools such as !ER% Charts and Gantt Charts will
be needed to keep the Action !lan on track.
22
Step : Recalculate the Resulting R!N
%his step in a FMEA confirms the action plan had the desired results by calculating
the resulting R!N.
%o recalculate the R!N, reassess the severity, occurrence, and detection rankings for
the failure modes after the action plan has been completed.
23
%OOLS FOR
FMEA
%here are many tools to aid the FMEA team in reducing the relative risk of those
failure modes requiring action. %he following recaps some of the most powerful
action tools for FMEAs.
Design 41 Expe7iments (DOE):
A family of powerful statistical improvement techniques that can identify the most
critical variables in a design and the optimal settings for those variables.
Mistake-!7441ing (!4ka Y4ke):
%echniques that can make it impossible for a mistake to occur, reducing the
Occurrence ranking to .
Especially important when the Severity ranking is .
Design 147 AssembIy and Design 147 Manu1a.tu7abiIity (DFA/DFM)
%echniques that help simplify assembly and manufacturing by modularizing product
subassemblies, reducing components, and standardizing components.
SimuIati4ns:
Simulation approaches include preproduction prototypes, computer models,
accelerated life tests, and valueengineering analyses.
24
http://www.npdsolutions.com/fmea.html
http://myapqp.com/FMEA.aspx
http://www.qualitytrainingportal.com/resources/
fmea/fmea_step_dfmea.htm