tips for fmea

E X C E L L E N C E

The Seven Failure Modes

FMEA Tips and Tricks

M a k i n g F M E A s S m a r t e r

The Forgotten FMEA Manual

In this issue ASQ Automotive Division

www.asq.org/auto

SUMMER 2008

The Seven Failure ModesJohn Lindland

FMEA Tips & TricksRon Atkinson

How Can We Make Our FMEAs Smarter?John Casey

The Forgotten FMEA ManualSteven C. Leggett

The American Society for Quality Automotive Division held its annual Awards Event on June 17, 2008 at the Henry Ford Fairlane Estate, Dearborn, MI.

Bennie Fowler, Vice President of Quality, Ford Motor Company delivered the keynote address followed by the awards ceremony.

ASQ Automotive Division Awards for 2008

Quality Leader of the Year – Marybeth Cunningham, Global Director, Excellence, Lean & Operations, Delphi Packard Electric/Electronic Architecture

Quality Professional of the Year – Dr. Rajinder Kapur, Supplier Development Engineer for Ford Motor Company

Koth Award Winner – Lou Ann Lathrop, Design Release Engineer, Engine Sensors

Cecil B. Craig Awards for Superior Papers published in the last year – 2 awards

John J. Casey for his paper “3L5Y Explained” and

Dan Reid for his paper “Developing the Voluntary Healthcare Standard”

Published by Mirus Graphic Solutions and ASQ Automotive Division

Editor-in-Chief: Amy LichonczakPublication Comittee: Janie ToppPublisher: Mirus Graphic Solutions

Direct all editorial submissions or advertising information to: Amy Lichonczak @ [email protected]

When reordering request document number B0624

NOTE: Please forward all change of address requests to ASQ headquarters at www.asq.org

Automotive Excellence (ISSN) is published by Mirus Graphic Solutions, for ASQ Automotive Division. All editorial submissions should be directed to Amy Lichonczak, Editor-in-Chief, or Mirus Graphic Solutions, Publisher at 25531 Dequindre Rd., Madison Hts, Michigan 48071. Advertising inquiries should be directed to [email protected] Copyright © 2008, ASQ Automotive Division. No information may be copied without the express written permission of the Editor-in-Chief, ASQ, Automotive Division. Neither the ASQ, ASQ Automotive Division, nor the Publisher’s office is responsible for the accuracy of information in editorial articles or advertising in this publication. Readers should independently evaluate the accuracy of any statements in the editorial or advertising of this publication which are important to them and rely on their own independent evaluation.

Chairperson (Voting Officer)JACKIE PARKHURSTTel: 313/220-0204E-Mail: [email protected]

Past Chair (Voting Officer)CHERYL FRANKS DENMANTel: 313/919-3294

Chair Elect (2008-2009) (Voting Officer)JOHN CASEYTel: 248/202-8494E-Mail: [email protected]

Treasurer (Voting Officer)FRANK BYKAYLOTel: 248/836-6045E-Mail: [email protected]

Secretary (Voting Officer)DENISE TISOTel: 248/431-9852E-Mail: [email protected]

07-08 AE EditorAMY LICHONCZAKTel: 586/214-4131E-Mail: [email protected]

Historian/MQC Liaison/AIAG Liaison/QFD Liaison (Voting Officer)LLOYD D. BRUMFIELDTel: 248/364-0196 Ext: 170E-Mail: [email protected]

Health Care LiaisonDAN REIDTel: 248/857-1166E-Mail: [email protected]

Standards (Voting Officer)DOUGLAS BERGTel: 248/348-2765E-Mail: [email protected]

Examining Chair Publications Team (Voting Officer)JERRY BOWENTel: 810/694-1586E-Mail: [email protected]

Regional Councilor, WCQI/Annual Boat CruiseFRANCIS W. CURTISSTel: 763/425-3724E-Mail: [email protected]

Membership Chair/Professional Development Detroit Section CLEM GOEBEL (Voting Member)Tel: 810/599-6188E-Mail: [email protected]

ASQ BOD PresidentRON ATKINSONTel: 248/821-4806E-Mail: [email protected]

Qualkity Professional of the YearKUSH SHAHTel: 248/830-8525E-Mail: [email protected]

Exhibits ChairDENNIS C. SEEGERTel: 313/235-9601E-Mail: [email protected]

Quality Leader Award ChairCAROLE MALONEE-Mail: [email protected]

Craig Award ChairLARRY R. SMITHTel: 313/623-7724E-Mail: [email protected]

Koth Award ChairALLY HAMOODTel: 586/575-2838E-Mail: [email protected]

Awards Chair (Voting Member)JAYNIE L. VIZETel: 248/371-2413E-Mail: [email protected]

Ann Arbor LiaisonERIC ZINKTel: 734/741-5399E-Mail: [email protected]

Detroit Liaison/Coordinator Team IndiaABHIJIT SENGUPTATel: 313/595-5310E-Mail: [email protected]

Northeastern Illinois Section 1212FRANCES BLOSSERE-Mail: [email protected]

ScholarshipsHIRA FOTEDARTel: 440/933-3626E-Mail: [email protected]

Assistant Scholarships/Saginaw LiaisonKEN ZIMMERTel: 989/868-4811E-Mail: [email protected]

Vice Chair ProgramsNARAYAN DASTel: 586/492-4671E-Mail: [email protected]

Chair-Paper SymposiumERIC HAYLERTel: 864/989-5577E-Mail: [email protected]

Coordinator Team India Project

Team Thailand LeaderMARIA STOLETOVAE-Mail: [email protected]

ASQ Headquarters AdministratorSHIRL FURGERTel: 800/248-1946E-Mail: [email protected]

ASQ AUTOMOTIVE DIVISIONVISION: To be the worldwide automotive industry’s leader on issues related to qualityMISSION:

CUSTOMERS: PRIMARYSECONDARY

TERTIARY

Features2

8

10

12

Upcoming Events

2007-2008 DIVISION COUNCIL ROSTER

Fall Quality Symposium September 2009Macomb Community College - University CenterUpdates and information can be found at www.asq.org/auto/

AUTOMOTIVE EXCELLENCE

1

from the home officeThis edition contains articles on Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). This valuable tool still has its imple-mentation challenges for many companies, but has enormous potential for improving effectiveness. The intent of these articles is to make implementation easier and the tool more user-friendly. It is our way of welcoming in the Fourth edition of the FMEA Manual being printed as you read this newsletter.

Fall will be here very soon; the Edition is already underway. With the new council year, it is my pleasure to introduce you to the new Chair Elect 2008-09 year: John Casey. John has long served as volunteer for the ASQ Automotive Council and various ASQ events. John has also been a regular author for Automotive Excellence.

It is difficult to believe that my time as Vice-Chair Publications of the ASQ Automotive Division, Automotive Excellence newsletter has ended. It was an honor to have served the last couple of years in bringing members articles and information on important industry topics.

Many challenges are ahead for the automotive industry, but no doubt it is here to stay and is evolving in our global market.

Sincerely,Amy LichonczakVice- Chair Publications [email protected]

Dear ASQ Automotive Division,

The constant force of change is upon us, the world will never be the same, now more thanever we need to lead. It is obvious that the competitive offerings and the constant push for savings is causing our industry to challenge everything in order to survive. We continuously push the organiza-tion to become more lean, we push for faster product introductions, all in order to get a market place advantage. Our greatest contribution as quality professionals is to show how the quality methods have the greatest leverage for our companies.

When you truly improve quality, you achieve it through improving first time yield. This simultaneously improves productivity, it directly improves cost, it improves employee morale and it improves customer confidence making your products worthy of a premium price. Strategic deployment of quality techniques is the only discipline that has a multiplier across all dimensions of business. The massive pressure for financial gains that is on our industry often causes our decision makers to

WE NEED TO LEAD. The tools and skills that you possess are the one’s the auto industry needs more than ever. If you see a prob-lem, solve it using disciplined methods and teach your peers the techniques you know. Make them problem solvers, just like you. That’s what leaders do, they show people a better way and enable them to duplicate the success. This leadership in quality can create geometric multipliers when hundreds of people follow your lead.

My objective over the next year is to find ways to invigorate deployment of the quality tools in our industry. We need an environ-ment to let you show off your skills and demonstrate the multiplying value that a quality professional like you can bring to yourcompany. How can the ASQ Automotive Division serve you and your company making the constant changes that we face have quality in the heart and soul? I am looking for your ideas, and thoughts.

John J. CaseyChair Elect [email protected]

SUMMER 2008

Which dimensions or material properties are required to make the product work?

Which dimensions, material properties, energy source, resistance/restriction will change over time?

laminar flow. For a given pressure, overall length affects flow resistance.

achieve a seal

pressure, affects flow resistance

www.asq.org/auto

2

DFMEA: Selecting the Correct Level of Detail

AXIOM: ENERGY CONSUMES ALL MATTER OVER

TIME. PARTS LAST LONGER WHEN THEY ARE

STRONGER, TOUGHER (RESIST DAMAGE), OR

THE STRESS IS LOWERED. UNDERSTAND AND

STUDY THE ENERGY STRESS RELATIONSHIPS.

Within the mission time, the important character-istics cannot degrade outside of design intent for fit, form function, appearance, or safety.GD&T and Material characteristics will ensure that the design works for a short period of time. How well the design and material parameters handle energy will determine how the design will perform over the mission time.

When identifying design detail to analyze, consider any detail which:

radiation, energy or other type of stress

(similar designs/applications)

form, function, appearance, safety, or government failure.

Primary Focusing Questions

stated requirements for fit, form, function, appearance, or safety?

result of time and energy?

and energy (strength, brittleness, resistance to energy transfer/flow, etc.)?

faces will change as a result of changing resistance (increasing or decreasing resistance)?

Selecting Detail

the product design: Assembly drawings, bills of material, schematics, specifications, etc.

selected detail, those which make the product work and those which will change over time (energy, resistance, restriction, strength, etc.).

item in terms of the function verb-noun.

The SevenFailure ModesWorkshop: Design Failure Modeand Effects AnalysisJohn Lindland

SeVEN FAILURE MODESTHE FMEA Process

Structure of the Workshops

Identify SpecialCharacteristics.

Controlsto PreventCause(s)

Controlsto DetectFailureMode(s)

Identify Item Detailsand Functions

BrainstormPotential Failure

Mode(s)

List the Effect(s) ofFailure Mode(s)

BrainstormCause(s) of Failure

Mode(s)

List CurrentDesign or Process

Controls

Assess Severity (S)of the Effect(s)

Assess Occurrence(O) of the Cause(s)

Assess Detection(D) of the FailureMode (D-Type)

Calculate CriticalityCrit = S X O

Calculate RPNRPN = S X O X D

Identify Failuremodes with S > 8

Create Pareto Charts ofCriticalities and RPNs

PrioritizeRecommended Actions

Hold FMEA Reviewsand Implement

Recommended Actions

Scope Risks

Risk Reduction

RPN: Risk Priority Number


3

SUMMER 2008

Understanding Failure Mode Relations

Every problem is preceded by the failure mode and the source of the failure mode, the cause. The cause is that which produces a poor quality function/response (failure mode).

All problems that relate to customer injury must be

given high priority regardless of the RPN that are found

during the analysis.

All problems have three components: 1. Frequency of occurrence of the cause. 2. The ability to detect (the failure mode or effect). 3. Severity (how the effect impacts the customer).

Mission Time and Action Response

The mission time is the length of time that the product/system must run without failure at its stated level of reliability.

Stated reliability is such that when requested to perform, the response (action) will meet all stated requirements.

Mission Time and Action Response

The mission time is the length of time that the product/system must run without failure at its stated level of reliability.

Stated reliability is such that when requested to perform, the response (action) will meet all stated requirements.

System, Sub-system, Part/Component Design Detail(s) Detail Function(s) Functional RequirementItem to be Studied: Fuel Nozzle Sub-categories of Item Verb-Noun Specification (if applicable)Nozzle Length Length Surface Resist Erosion New

Flow Length Resists Flow 1.00 Basic DimensionNozzle Opening Diameter Cross Sectional Area Resist Flow 0.15±0.01

Nozzle Opening Resist Buildup NewNozzle Base Flatness Achieve Seal 0.03 Max

Engine:Model Year:

FMEA Number:FMEA Scope:

EffectFailure Mode

(Flawed Action/Response)

Source ofthe Failure

Mode(Cause)

(S)Severity

(O)Frequency

(D)Ability to Detect

(failure mode and problem)

Reduce Frequencythrough DesignChanges (Error

Proofing)

Manage the failure modethrough Mistake-Proofingand equipment controls.During the Mission Time,

the Action/Responsebecomes flawed.

Manage Problems through theProcess Control Plan for:

Verification, Validation, ProcessControl, in partnership with

Inspection and Testing and Controlof Nonconforming Product

Reduce Severitythrough Design

Changes

Absorb energy Dampen noise Inject air Provide Identification Remove chemicalsAbsorb heat Develop finish Inject fuel Provide information Remove elementAbsorb impact Develop heat Inject liquid Provide light Remove heatAbsorb moisture Develop pressure Isolate electrical current Provide reference Remove particlesAbsorb radiation Develop seal Isolate materials Provide seal Remove sealAbsorb vibration Develop strain Isolate x Provide signal Remove xAbsorb x Develop x Limit movement Provide spark Resist chemicalsAccept bolt/screw Direct flow Maintain force Provide stiffness Resist damageAccept gas/air Direct light Maintain seal Provide structure Resist deformationAccept liquid End cycle Meter flow Provide tension Resist fatigueAccept part Engage part Modulate brakes Provide x Resist movementAchieve hardness Guide electrical-current Open circuit Read signal Resist radiationAdjust speed Guide energy Open x Reduce backlash Resist StrainAmplify signal Guide fluid Orient part Reduce chattering Resist wearChange chemicals Guide force Oxidize material Reduce chemical Resist xChange state Guide heat Position electrode Reduce force Secure partClip signal Guide light Position part Reduce friction Start cycleClose circuit Guide movement Protect material Reduce heat Support partControl crack Guide pressure Protect microstructure Reduce leak Transfer electrical-currentControl direction Guide sound Protect part Reduce heat-loss Transfer electricityControl feedback Guide vibration Protect surface Reduce noise Transfer forceControl force Handle current Protect x Reduce pressure Transfer heatControl location Hold liquid Provide clearance Reduce shock Transfer liquidControl position Hold oil Provide color Reduce signal-noise Transfer pressureControl pressure Hold paint Provide continuity Reduce vibration Transfer xControl shock Hold part Provide feedback Reduce wear Turn fanControl speed Hold plating Provide force Reduce x Turn shaftControl speed Hold pressure Provide form Reflect heat Withstand fatigueControl temperature Hold x Provide friction Reflect light Withstand forceControl x Increase force Provide fuel Reflect particles Withstand heatCreate vacuum Increase pressure Provide heat Reflect x Withstand x

Examples of Design Functions

time

material buildup over time

Product: Documenting the Level of Detail

component(s)] for the study

Item

Design Detail in the “Verb-Noun” format

Flow Nozzle

.03

900

.15±0.011.000

-A-

Available from www.aiag.org

www.asq.org/auto

4

7 failure modesExample: Failure Mode Brainstorming

Worksheets

Causes, Failure Modes, and Effects

Item: Fuel InjectionDetail Name: NozzleDetail Function (Verb-Noun): Atomize Fuel

1. Failure Mode (Omission): Does not AtomizeFuel

2. Failure Mode (Excessive Action):Excessively Atomized Fuel

3. Failure Mode (IncompleteAction):Incompletely Atomized Fuel

4. Failure Mode (Erratic Action): ErraticallyAtomized Fuel

5. Failure Mode (Uneven Application of Action):Unevenly Atomized Fuel

6. Failure Mode (Too Much Time): AtomizedFuel too Slowly

7. Failure Mode (Too Little Time): AtomizedFuel too Quickly

8. Failure Mode (Other): N/A

Cause FailureMode Effect

ResistanceRestriction

Technical RootCause

Behavioral RootCause

Human Tactile

Failure ModeFrom Another

Part

DimensionDimension Changes

SurfaceInterfaceMaterialEnergyNoise

SprayNozzle

AtomizeFuel

FunctionVerb-Noun

Fuel not Atomized

Fuel Atomized TooMuch

Fuel not AtomizedEnough

Erratic Atomizingof Fuel

Uneven Atomizingof Fuel

Fuel Atomized tooSlowly

Fuel Atomized tooQuickly

[O]

[+]

[-]

[V]

[U]

[+T]

[-T]

Make sure thatthe verb-noun isincluded in thefailure modestatement

Energy, Resistance, Action, and Results

This relationship is true for both people (transactions)

and equipment (technical).

Action and Results

No Action

Too Much Action

Too Little Action

Resistance: Action too Slow

Resistance: Action too Fast

For Product Design: Energy can be by design or a

component of Noise (heat, cold, vibration, chemical

reactions,...). Resistance can also be by design, or a

component of noise (dirt, changing load, corrosion,...)

Simple Example of Function and Failure Modes

Resistance Action ResultsEnergy

Renew online at: www.asq.org


5

SUMMER 2008

Technical Root Causes relate to specific product, process, or energy faults that cause the action to fail. Technical causes relate to too much/little resistance or restrictions to an action or energy transfer. Resistance relates to friction and restrictions relate to a material to material interference. Resistance and restrictions also relate to employees working with each other. It is interesting that in the mechanical world resistance creates heat and that resistance between workers creates anger/resentment. In other words, resistance wears out processes and/or breaks down relationships.

tactile (movement/ words) that directly creates the failure mode. Example, the failure mode might be “low specified design margin” while the human tactile is “engineer selected a design margin that was too low.”

A previous failure mode can be a cause, but not a root cause as it has its own causes.

action (failure mode). The failure mode (flawed action/response) occurs at the exact same time that the correct action should occur, and the resulting problems are preceded immediately by the failure mode (flawed action/response).

The components which are missing from this analysis are:

severity of the effectsControls for the failure mode (Detection)

and causes (Prevention)occurrence

Identify Current ControlsCurrent Controls are not what an organiza-tion could be doing to detect failures. Current controls are that which are actually being performed. Controls are used to detect either the failure mode or causes.There are two primary types of controls Preven-tive (P) and Detection (D). Detection is generally considered to focus on the failure mode and prevention addresses cause controls. Preventive controls do not receive detection ratings (they reduce the frequency of occurrence). Detection controls receive ratings. The ratings will bedescribed later in the materials. Only describe the actual controls that are currently being used.

Example: Determining Causes and Effects Begins with Defining the Potential Failure Mode

Time

FailureMode

Time ofFunction

ControlFactors

Time

Requirements

to tfMission

Local Effect (part)Assembly EffectSystem EffectUser EffectGovernment Effect

Cause 1Cause 2Cause 3Cause 4Cause 5

FailureMode:

IncompletelyAtomized

Fuel

Causes

Effects

Interface Functionbetween Fuel and PintleDimension: Nozzle

Angle too SmallDimensional Change:None

Surface: None

Interface: Fuel Viscosityto High

Material: None

Energy: Fuel Pressuretoo Low

Noise: Buildup on Pintle

Human Tactile: None

Resistance: None

Restriction: Buildup onPintle Changes ShapeFailure Mode fromAnother Part: None

List All Important Effects

Local Effect (part): None

Assembly Effect: None

System Effect: EngineVibration

User Effect: Poor ColdStarts, Poor Gas Mileage

Government Effect: HighEmissions

www.asq.org/auto

6

7 FAILURE MODESFailure Mode Relationship to Causes,

Effects and Detections

Documenting Risks

FailureMode

Effect 1Effect 2Effect 3Effect 4Effect 5

Time

FailureMode

Detection

Prevention 1Prevention 2Prevention 3Prevention 4Prevention 5

Cause 1Cause 2Cause 3Cause 4Cause 5

Effect Based Failure ModeDetection 1

Effect Based Failure ModeDetention 2




List the current P-type controls thatwill prevent cause.

List the D-type controls todetect the failure mode

through the effect. Thesemust be established/

performed prior to therelease of the design.

List the currentD-type controlsthat will detect

the failuremode. Examples: Reliability

Testing, ValidationTesting, Sensor BasedEngine Controls, etc.

Example: Heatthermography,vibration and

sound sensing,etc.

Examples: materialspecifications,

design standards,design reviews,

documentedprocedures/

processes, etc.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Worksheet

Cause Occurrence #O

Detail Function (Verb-Noun): Atomize FuelYC/YS Description:

QualSAT

3

5

6

DYS

1

53

YC

FM (Effect) Detection 1:Engineering Emission Test

FM (Effect) Detection 2: ColdRoom Start Test

FM (Effect) Detection 3:Highway Road Validation Test

FM (Effect) Detection 4:


S

10

8

6

Effect 1: High Emissions

Effect 2: Poor Cold Starts

Effect 3: Poor Gas Mileage

Effect 4:

Effect 5:

D3

Failu

re M

ode

Det

ectio

n: H

igh

Spee

d D

igita

l Pic

ture

s

Failu

re M

ode:

Fue

l Not

Ato

miz

ed E

noug

h

66

5

5

4

Cause 1: Wrong DesignAngle

Cause 2: Pressure TooHigh

Cause 3: Pressure TooLow

Cause 4: Simulation NotPerformed

Cause 5:

(P) Control 1: Finite ElementAnalysis

(P) Control 2: Parametric Designof Experiments


(P) Control 4: Internal Auditing

(P) Control 5:

RPN:4

SO:S:

Item: Fuel InjectorDesign Detail: Nozzle

2 3

D12 3

3Effect FM Det 1Effect FM Det 2Effect FM Det 3Effect FM Det 4Effect FM Det 5

SEffect 1Effect 2Effect 3Effect 4Effect 5

DFailureMode

OCause 1Cause 2Cause 3Cause 4Cause 5

Identify theDetection #'s

Identify theOccurrence #'s

Identify theSeverity #'s

Identify theDetection #'s


7

SUMMER 2008

Workshop

Risk Probability of Failure R/100 Cpk1 1 in 1,500,000 0.0000006667 0.00 ≥1.672 1 in 150,000 0.0000066667 0.00 ≥1.503 1 in 15,000 0.0000666667 0.01 ≥1.334 1 in 2,000 0.0005000000 0.05 ≥1.175 1 in 400 0.0025000000 0.25 ≥1.006 1 in 80 0.0125000000 1.25 ≥0.837 1 in 20 0.0500000000 5.00 ≥0.678 1 in 8 0.1250000000 12.50 ≥0.519 1 in 3 0.3333333333 33.33 ≥0.33

10 1 in 2 or more ≥ 0.5000000000 >50.00 <0.33Very High: Failure is

almost inevitable

Possible Failure RatesOccurrence Evaluation Criteria

Remarks: The team should agree on an evaluation criteria and ranking system which is consistent, even if modified for individual product analysis.

Remote: Failure is unlikely

Low: Relatively few failures

Moderate: Occasional failures

High: Repeated failures

Ranking Effect Severity of Effect1 None No Effect2 Very Minor Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform.

Defect noticed by discriminating customer.

3 Minor Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by average customer.

4 Very Low Fit & Finish/Squeak & Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by most customers.

5 Low Vehicle/item operable, but Comfort/Convenience item(s) operable at reduced level of performance. Customer experiences some dissatisfaction.

6 Moderate Vehicle/item operable, but Comfort/Convenience item(s) inoperable. Customer experiences discomfort.

7 High Vehicle/item operable, at reduced level of performance. Customer Dissatisfied.

8 Very High Vehicle/item inoperable, with loss of primary function.

9 Hazardous – With Warning

Very high severity ranking when a potential failure hazardous- mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves with warning noncompliance with government regulation with warning.

10 Hazardous – Without Warning

Very high severity ranking when a potential failure hazardous- mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves with warning noncompliance with government regulation without warning.

Severity Evaluation Criteria


www.asq.org/auto

8

7 Failure modesFMEA Tips & TricksGet the most out of your processRon Atkinson

Give initial FMEA training on an object that is common to the students and not part of their work processes. That way they can concentrate on the concepts. Move on to actual work pro-cesses when the concepts are understood.

The logical sequence is to do Design FMEA training followed by Process FMEA training. It is actually easier to grasp the concepts by doing the Process FMEA first and then transfer the concepts to the Design FMEA.

Failure is the inability of the item or activity being studied to perform its intended function. This can happen even if the part or process does not ‘break’.

FMEA is used to evaluate POTENTIAL failures. A FMEA analysis does not mean that the failure has occurred in the past or will occur in the future, just that it potentially could occur.

The Cause of the Failure is often given as the Po-tential Failure Mode. This creates a problem and results in confusion when identifying the Cause. Example: People see a tire without air and state that the Failure Mode is a nail in the tire. The tire losing air pressure slowly is the Potential Failure Mode and a nail in the tire is the Cause.

design or process make the rest of the FMEA analysis easier.

tips

Summarizing the Results of the Brainstorming on the DFMEA Form

to the numbers on the DFMEA form on the following page.

Ranking Risk Of Non-Detection

Detection Likelihood of Detection By Current Design Control

1 0% to 5% Almost Certain

Current Control will almost certainly detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

2 5% to 15% Very High Very High chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

3 15% to 25% High High chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

4 25% to 35% Moderately High

Moderately high chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

5 35% to 45% Moderate Moderate chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

6 45% to 55% Low Low chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

7 55% to 65% Very Low Very low chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

8 65% to 75% Remote Remote chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

9 75% to 85% Very Remote

Very remote chance the Current Control will detect a potential cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode.

10 85% to 100% Absolute Uncertainty

Current Control will not and/or cannot detect a potential uncertainty cause/mechanism and subsequent failure mode; or there is no Current Control.

Detection Evaluation Criteria


Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Worksheet

Cause Occurrence #O

Detail Function (Verb-Noun): Atomize FuelYC/YS Description:

QualSAT

3

5

6

DYSYC

FM (Effect) Detection 1:Engineering Emission Test

FM (Effect) Detection 2: ColdRoom Start Test

FM (Effect) Detection 3:Highway Road Validation Test



S

10

8

6

Effect 1: High Emissions

Effect 2: Poor Cold Starts

Effect 3: Poor Gas Mileage

Effect 4:

Effect 5:

D3

Failu

re M

ode

Det

ectio

n: H

igh

Spee

d D

igita

l Pic

ture

s

Failu

re M

ode:

Fue

l Not

Ato

miz

ed E

noug

h

66

5

5

4

Cause 1: Wrong DesignAngle

Cause 2: Pressure TooHigh

Cause 3: Pressure TooLow

Cause 4: Simulation NotPerformed

Cause 5:

(P) Control 1: Finite ElementAnalysis



(P) Control 4: Internal Auditing

(P) Control 5:

RPN:SO:S:

Item: Fuel InjectorDesign Detail: Nozzle

10 11

13

13

13

13

13

12

16

15

15

15

15

15

17

17

17

17

17

18

14 18

19

19

19

192021

STAY INFORMED!The Fall Edition

ofAutomotiveExcellence

is Coming Soon


9

SUMMER 2008

ASQ Greater Detroit Section 2008 Schedule of Refresher Courses All classes are held on Saturdays at Macomb Community College, South Campus, Building "T" (located between 12 Mile Road & Martin Road, west of Hayes Road). Refresher course starting dates are subject to change, student should verify.

Certification Refresher Course #

Refresher Course Start Date

Examination Application (Last) Date

Examination Date

Fee

Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) 12 Sessions

CQE 808 CQE 209

08-09-2008 02-07-2009

10-03-2008 04-03-2009

12-06-2008 06-06-2009

$450

Certified Quality Technician (CQT) 10 Sessions

CQT 1108 CQT 709

07-12-2008 11-08-2008

08-15-2008 01-09-2009

10-18-2008 03-07-2009

$325

Certified Quality Inspector (CMI) 10 Sessions

CQI 1108 CQI 709

07-12-2008 11-08-2008

08-15-2008 01-09-2009

10-18-2008 03-07-2009

$325

Certified Six Sigma Black Belt (CSSBB) 10 Sessions

CSSBB 608 CSSBB1108

06-21-2008 11-08-2008

08-15-2008 01-09-2009

10-18-2008 03-07-2009

$1000

Certified Six Sigma Green Belt (CSSGB) 10 Sessions

CSSGB908 CSSGB309

09-20-2008 03-14-2009

10-03-2008 04-03-2009

12-06-2008 06-06-2009

$500

REGISTRATION FORM

Greater Detroit Section 1000 27350 Southfield Rd., Suite 102 Lathrup Village, MI 48076 www.asqdetroit.org

Name Last First Mid. Initial

Home Address Home Phone

Employer Work Phone

Employer Address

ASQ Member No Yes

Member Number

Payment: Make check payable to Greater Detroit Section, ASQ Mail to: Greater Detroit Section 1000 27350 Southfield Rd., Suite 102 Lathrup Village, MI 48076 For more information call Rajinder Kapur at 248-703-7148 or e-mail [email protected]

www.asq.org/auto

10

How can we make our FMEA’s Smarter?John Casey

-ity with a passion to stop things that could go wrong—that is, prevent issues and problems from reaching customers. This truly is a smart

“things gone wrong” method of Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA), which was a great tool that has now served its purpose.

The auto industry has wrung out the maximum benefit out of the approach and needs a new driving force in order to achieve the next level.

The auto industry, in fact all industry, needs to move the actions of the engineering and man-agement community into a situation where you can guarantee operator success. Let me illus-trate. Quality of products is typically measured

Most suppliers in the auto industry perform at 100 PPM or better. This means their performance is 99.99% good and only .01% defective (1 bad product out of 10,000).

For a production operator, they followed an exact and perfect set of steps almost all of the time but once out of 10,000 tries, the operation was differ-ent and made an unacceptable part. The problem with FMEA’s is right here. There are an infinite number of things that an operator can do wrong and FMEA’s are trying to address all of them. Chasing infinity is a very frustrating activity. Isn’t it smarter to focus on the steps that must go right and only look for the deviations? Wouldn’t it be better to have the base philosophy drive our ef-forts to “Either do it right or we won’t let you do it at all?” This seems simpler to me and I think we would get greater yield on our engineering hours if we had a method that could guide our thinking in this way.

I believe we can document the exact steps of each operator and have simple devices guide the operator’s efforts to help him follow the exact pattern with a guiding principal of “If each part is not made exactly right, we will stop the process and start over.” This is the heart of Success Every Time or SET. SET is a cost effective methodology to help companies move from 200 PPM down to 1 PPM or better and simultaneously maximize profits.

The Best Thing about FMEA’s

Please recognize that I think FMEA’s bring us a terrific aspect and that we should keep FMEA’s as a fundamental process in the quality disci-pline. The things I like about FMEA’s are:

operation then create a countermeasure

risk and work to reduce it

logical easy to follow formula

This approach is so logical and direct, it is dif-ficult to argue with it. In fact, the greatest asset of the FMEA is that it can be applied to various levels of design and manufacturing. This tool has been effective in bringing the industry a long way in improving quality. The problem is, the FMEA approach cannot cost effectively take the industry to the next level.

What can we do instead?

The difference between the FMEA approach and the SET Approach can best be illustrated described in a Ying Yang Diagram as illustrated in Diagram 1.1. In the world of manufacturing, every operation performs work and can either be done right or done wrong. In the FMEA approach, you focus on stopping activities in the

new things we never thought of and find new waysto do it wrong. The list of possibilities grow and grow and the time, effort, and expense to protect us from this list grows in proportion.

This continued pursuit of infinity may be a solid explanation of why, after 25 years, the auto industry still has trouble creating totally comprehensive FMEA’s to catch every problem. Anyone facing an infinite task like this will look for shortcuts, take risks, or just go as far as time and energy permits and stop, which is exactly what has happened to the FMEA process. It has passed the point of diminished returns. We need something different now.

Success Every Time (SET) - as an Alternative

-cess, you focus on a much smaller set of actions than the infinite listing of what can go wrong (such as with FMEA). Instead, you need to define what must go right and set up assisting devices on these actions to help operators do their work exactly right. For line associates, it is just as easy to make a part correctly as it is to make a part improperly, so you generally won’t get any resistance from them regarding this idea of doing it right. The problem, however, is that normalactions within a day cause disruptions that dis-tract people for a very short while. Thesedistractions could last a few seconds or a few minutes, but as soon as you have a small mental lapse and day dream, boom—a mistake is made. Although this is normal and utterly human, it still causes an error.

Success Every Time is investing in devices to help operators remember what to do, and help them do it right. One operator I worked with described it most profoundly: “Set the system up so that the process is telling me everything I need to know”.

If you look quickly, you may be thinking that this is just a different way of describing the Poke

-cess Every Time is much larger. Here’s why: the typical concept of error-proofing is looking at the device level. It is looking for means to detect defects, many of which are discovered one at a time.

I define error proofing as a method that PRE-VENTS an error from occurring. It has two key pieces. The first is some type of mechanism or sensing device that for this operation everything is exactly right. The second feature is a con-trol element that will only allow the operation to proceed based on the devices sensing that every element is right. If they are not right the potential defective operation is stopped before the actual error is built in to the product before the value adding step builds the part. In simple terms, either the product is right or it is stopped. Error Proofing Prevents the defects from being created.

Smarter fmeas


11

SUMMER 2008

The elements of the Success Every Time Process

I believe there are a very clear set of actions done on every job that makes perfect parts tostandard. This set of actions is done every day, hundreds of times by each operator as they make the thousands of great parts every week.

The Set of “perfect” Actions by Operators 1. Select the correct part

rotated) 3. Place the part in the exact correct location within the tooling (multiple parts go return to step 1 and repeat the sequence) 4. Activate the value adding energy

What will be the result?

value add to proceed if the ideal is in place, we have a much smaller task to drive quality and productivity. All you need to do is monitor 9 spe-cific elements and ask the question “Is every-thing right?” If it is, allow the process to proceed. If any one of the 9 elements are not right, STOP, make a correction or dispose of the part. I think this is a smarter way to approach FMEA’sbecause it is a finite set and we can stop chasing infinity.

John Casey is a Supply Chain improvement

expert at the Whitehall Group LLC in Troy,

Michigan.

[email protected]

The operators need the correct tooling to do each job correctly

5. The Correct Set of Tools (including gages) 6. Properly aligned to mating fixtures and equipment

The Parameters governing the value added energy

7. Correct amount of energy 8. Correct dwell time or parameters on each job 9. Energy deployed to the correct location on the part

What needs to goRIGHT?

What can goWRONG

ProblemProblem

Problem

ProblemProblem

Proble

m

FMEA’SSystematically Reduce Risk

A Simplified Look at Manufacturing

The Other Side of the World

A Tough Question:What’s our method to SYSTEMATICALLYfocus on what needs to go right?

Currently We Have NothingThat Aims atThis target Potential Problems

can be infinite

FMEA’sFocus our attention here.

www.asq.org/auto

12

The Forgotten FMEA ManualSteven C. LeggettThe Automotive Division requested authors submit articles on technical subjects. What better subject than FMEA’s! This subject is always misunderstood, and there are many interpretations about FMEA’s and how they are applied. It has been my experience that most organizations and suppliers do an excel-lent job, but there are times when Design/Process FMEAs, have many errors or conflicting information, or the failure mode was never thought through or incorporated into the original documents. The Poten-tial Failure Modes are always added after the fact, or after the failure occurred. Then the FMEA Team scrambles to update the latest documents. On many occasions, the Quality or Engineering Manager or Quality Engineer is the FMEA Team, and completes the required documentation just prior to the PPAP submission deadlines.

People need to understand that all FMEA Teams should be cross-functional, multidisciplinary teams, and this is a real life scenario. Please review these reference manuals to help you facilitate your PPAP Requirements.

The Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) are an important tool for evaluation and pro-cess analysis for finding and identifying any potential irregularities and weaknesses in the production and manufacturing processes. For the past three decades, two groups have collaborated to develop and improve these FMEA Reference Manuals.The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) devel-oped SAE J1739 with the coordination of the Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Mo-tors Corporation FMEA Reference Manual for both design and process analysis of failure modes. TheAutomotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) developed Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) Reference Manual with again, the coordination of Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.

Throughout the years, the FMEA Manuals have added key features and elements for the advance-ments and improvements in an automotive FMEA application. The reference guidelines have been published to help ensure that any FMEA is interpret-ed and developed with a consistent process.

The reference manuals and guidelines are help-ful, but the interpretations are still broad and objective. There is still a need to further improve and develop this subject, especially in the areas of prevention and detection rankings. The detec-tion ranking is very hard to understand, very subjective, and difficult to apply in a consistent manner. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) will not show the true value upon completion of your analysis.

There are more revisions to the reference manu-als that will be released soon; that will help guide the FMEA Team.

The guidelines for detection and prevention have been used in automotive applications to help develop consistent Process FMEAs (PFMEA) for manufacturing and production applications. There are a number of factors to be considered when using these guidelines, based on the cause or mechanism of the detected failure. Look at the type of inspection, whether manual (visual) or automated, and how close the failure mode is to the cause. This is just one of the questions that need to be asked before you start the entireMachinery FMEA (MFMEA) process. This Lesson learned will provide a relationship between the FMEA and the production and manufacturing en-vironment; and it makes the FMEA process eas-ier to understand, and easier to use, especially for the novice. To ensure consistency throughout the entire document is very important. This will also ensure better quality processes and parts for your customers.

Your main objective, before starting the process, is to have all D/P/M FMEA Team members prop-erly trained and knowledgably about the entire FMEA process.

Have you ever heard of the Forgotten FMEA Manual?

Some people will even ask, what is a FMEA? How do you make a FMEA? What does FMEA stand for and how does it apply to me? Others will tell you that FMEA helps people in national emergencies. That FMEA is FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency. Please don’t get the two mixed up! The FMEA that this articlerefers to is the Potential Failure Mode and Ef-fects Analysis for Tooling & Equipment (Machin-ery FMEA or MFMEA). This MFMEA is a Refer-ence Manual and is the technical equivalent of SAE J1739, Section 5. The Machinery FMEA Manual should been used by all suppliers to companies subscribing to the old QS-9000 Tool-ing and Equipment Supplement, or an Equivalent Document. Since there is no more QS-9000, allorganizations, and suppliers to customers sub-scribing to ISO/TS 16949 should also be using the Machinery FMEA Manual. You can obtain your copy of this excellent and “Forgotten” Machin-ery FMEA Manual from the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), Southfield, Michigan.

A little history behind the AIAG-MFMEA Manual, First Edition: In 2000, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) had just released their SAE J1739 and it had Section 5 about the Tool-ing & Equipment. Not all Suppliers make their own tooling and equipment, and it would be a non-functional part of the current AIAG-FMEA Manual, Third Edition. So it was decided to remove the tooling and equipment (Section 5), out of the SAE J1739 Specification, and make this

This manual is the technical equivalent of SAE J1739, Section Five (5), Potential Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for Machinery (MFMEA). This reference manual is for the FMEA of Tooling and Equipment Suppliers to Chrysler LLC, FordMotor Company, and General Motors Corpora-tion and other Global OEM’s is intended to clarify questions regarding the technical development of Machinery FMEAs.

The Supplier Quality Requirements Task Force Charter is consistent to the standardization of reference manuals, procedures, reporting formats and the technical nomenclature used by Organizations and their Suppliers. Accordingly, the MFMEA has been written to provide guid-ance for the Organization and their Suppliers. The MFMEA reference manual does not define requirements; it does provide a baseline and guides users to cover situations that would nor-mally be used when preparing MFMEAs duringthe machinery design phase. Also, the AIAG-MF-

-tion Reference Manuals should be used together, to reduce the possibility of any failures used during the design and process of any production or manufacturing facility and its suppliers. The Fourth Edition MFMEA Reference Manual should be available later this summer. Once this new edition has been released, it is recommendedfor each Team Member to be retrained to the new Fourth Edition MFMEA Reference Manual, and then complete your MFMEA requirements.

The Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Tooling & Equipment (MFMEA) concepts should be applied to machinery to reduce the likelihoods and the probability of possible or potential failure modes related to machinery. The MFMEA supports the machinery design process from design development through the design approval process. The MFMEA should be a thor-ough review of each element, function or step, in the overall operation of the machinery. The MFMEA manual addresses the design conceptsused to develop an effective MFMEA.

During the development of the build and instal-lation process MFMEA, covers concepts by all Global OEM’s, and therefore, the MFMEA manual should be considered and followed. The build and installation process FMEA should be initiated prior to the creation of any machinery. Machinery is considered any and all tooling and equipment combined to process or manufacture, fabricate, machine or assemble of all hardware.This includes all tooling, fixtures, conveyors, equipment, components, details, electricalmotors and wiring, switches, or any possible combination. Additional examples include:gages, stamping presses, injection molding, metal cutting tools, welding, painting, andcleaning equipment, all of which contribute to the manufacturing process, including thenecessary operational computer hardware and software.

FORGOTTEN FMEA MANUAL


13

SUMMER 2008

Also take into consideration:a) the human element;b) training related to the operational content of each element andc) the process step related to the process.

These three items also include documentation, manuals, procedures, and employee training re-cords. Remember 100% inspection is not an effective way to catch all nonconformances.

The Design MFMEA should be used as a continuous improvement process and should be used to evalu-ate the reliability, availability, maintainability, and durability of the tooling, equipment and machinery.

MFMEAs are living documents and should be reviewed and updated at regular intervals and as process changes occur. Don’t forget the supporting documents used during the machinery operations and the development process.

When you start the MFMEA process, you should have a cross-functional team lead by the machinery responsible engineer and is expected to involve all areas at the manufacturing site. The manufacturing facility should include plant & product engineers,safety, quality, maintenance, production, support personnel and the customer. This also includes supplier engineering and their MFMEA from the ma-chinery system, subsystem and all components. The customer of the MFMEA is the manufacturing facility where the tooling and equipment will be installed for the production process.

A starting point should be defined; and become a catalyst to simulate and stimulate the interactive and interchange of ideas between all parties. There should be a team approach during the activities and include all commercial components and their responsible engineer from each supplier. Each com-ponent should be reviewed in detail for theirMFMEA criteria. The responsible machinery engineer should be experienced with FMEA to help facilitate and to help assist the team.

The Potential Machinery FMEA (Process) should be used by the responsible machinery engineer and the team as an analytical tool to evaluate any possible failures during the design, install, manufacture, or operation on all tooling and equipment. These techniques should take in consideration all potential failure modes and their possible causes and/ormechanisms of failure, related to the operation of the machinery as a means to ensure that all failures are considered and addressed. The MFMEA should be used as an input to the manufacturing facilities preventative maintenance program and should be used to determine the machinery controls that may be used during the operation, manufacturing and production processes. There will also be a need to review all outside suppliers operations with the causes and effects of any possible failures. Other considerations: I recommend having the customer preventative maintenance and supplier field servicerepresented on the MFMEA Team. Otherwise, it will be impossible to develop an effective MFMEA.

The MFMEA Team should concentrate on improving the reliability, availability, maintainabil-ity, and durability of the tooling, equipment and machinery while conducting the analysis. During the deep dive process, the MFMEA Teams ques-tions, thoughts, documentation, lessons learned, and analysis of each line element, should be based on items that could potentially fail by their associated causes and/or mechanisms of fail-ures related to the operation of the machinery. This should also be considered on the basis ontheir past experiences concerns regarding the entire operating production environment and performance of the machinery. The MFMEA improves the reliability, availability, maintain-ability, and durability of the machinery. It helps in the evaluation and understanding of the line elements and steps of the device’s, it aids in the objective evaluation and helps provide the nec-essary information to aid in the planning of aneffective and efficient process for the supplier preventative maintenance programs.

When the process of the MFMEA had been initi-ated and implemented, the results are reduced life cycle costs, improved machinery repair and maintenance, and reduction in mean time to repair. The MFMEA shows the probability of their potential failure modes and all the effects of the shop floor should be considered before

completion of the process, the MFMEA Team has a ranked list of the potential failure modes and their potential causes and mechanisms. The listwill be ranked accordingly, and then establish a priority system for preventative and corrective actions.

Once the MFMEA Team has assembled and all pertinent back up information prepared, the machinery responsible engineer should lead the group in the MFMEA development process. The process begins with the preparation of all documents and each member should have a full understanding of what the entire process can and will do, during the manufacturing and pro-duction processes. Each Team member should be trained prior to the start of the development of the MFMEA process as to what the machinery is expected to do or not do, in the production and manufacturing environment, under the specifiedconditions and for the required time period. (e.g. hot, cold, humidity, oil, water, cutting fluids, ma-chining chips, etc…..). This criteria is expected from sources such as design requirements, validation testing, preventative maintenance programs, program and performance criteria, reliability, maintainability, availability and durabil-ity results, contract and engineering specifica-tions, production and ongoing testing, including lot control testing, traceability requirements, prevention, detection and corrective actions.

This would also include the lessons learned, preventative maintenance historical recordsof the same machines, and possible federal, state and/or local regulatory laws.

-opment process, the MFMEA Team should have access to the process flow diagram, sequence of steps of the operation of the machinery and detailed descriptions. The tooling and equipment machinery brochures, with engineering draw-ings, detail prints and machinery reliability data and capability studies. The responsible machin-ery engineer leads the Team, to help facilitate all of the documented results and analysis of the potential failure modes and cause mechanism of failures, and their possible consequences and recommended actions.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I could write another 20 pages of this fantastic FMEA material. It can be a very dry subject, but I would like you to get excited about new AIAG Fourth Edition FMEA Reference Manual, and please don’t forget about “The Forgotten FMEA Manual”, about Machinery FMEA’s.

Steven C. Leggett is a General Motors Corpora-tion, Senior APQP Supplier Quality Engineer. In his current position, Mr. Leggett is responsible for Cradle to Grave APQP Functions and War-ranty regarding Chassis Components. He has been and is active in the development of qualitypublications by the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). He is the co-author of the AIAG-FMEA Manual-Third Edition and is Chair of the AIAG-PPAP Manual-Fourth Edition, as well as aSpeaker at various local and national confer-ences. Steve is also active within the AutomotiveDivision and Detroit Section of ASQ, he can be reached at [email protected].

Reference Information can be found on the links below:

SAE J1739, AIAG-FMEA, MFMEA, PPAP, APQP, MSA, SPC, ISO/TS 16949, and Juran’s Quality

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) www.sae.org

Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) www.aiag.org

American Society for Quality (ASQ) www.asq.org

Published by Mirus Graphic Solutions and ASQ Automotive Division

www.asq.org

PRSRT STDUS POSTAGE

PAIDLIVONIA, MI

PERMIT # 1165

tips for fmea

Documents