Failure Modes and Effects

Analysis (FMEA)
Introduction
Failure of components can occur for a variety of different reasons depending upon the product
and its application. The list of failure modes in any particular product could be quite
considerable. The traditional culture of designers is one of solving a failure mode problem once
it has occurred. The philosophy of design assurance is one of failure prevention by analysing
failure modes at the initial decision making stages of the design process, i.e. the 'front end'.
When individual failure modes have been identified in a system, various techniques can be used
for the synthesis of these failure modes into a procedure for systematic analysis and to propose
solutions to them. These techniques have been broadly called 'Hazard Analysis methods and
have often been employed in post-mortem situations, after the component or product has failed.
ONE procedure contained within this broad band of Hazard Analysis is a procedure called
FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis).
Hazard analysis
Definition of Hazard:
'A set of conditions in the operation of a product or system with the potential for initiating an
accident sequence.' (BS 4778 13.3.1). More simply: a potential source of harm!
Preliminary hazard analysis
This is a broad study made in the early stages of design. It consists of breaking the engineering
system down into sub-systems or even to individual components and for each, answering the
following questions:
1. Sub-system or item under consideration
2. Mode of operation.
3. Hazardous element
4. Event that triggers the hazardous element
5. Hazardous condition.
6. Event that triggers the potential accident
7. Potential accident.
8. Possible effects of accident

9. Measures taken to contain or prevent occurrences

10. Classification of hazard
Refer to information below for the qualitative classification of hazard.

Information for completing the Preliminary Hazard Analysis comes from personal experience,
interviews with operating personnel supervisors, literature etc. Consider the following example
of a tie-bar bracket in a hostile environment; the analysis would be:
1. Tie-bar bracket
2. Part of engine stabilising system
3. Hostile environment
4. Operation of engine
5. Corrosion
6. Corrosion reduces cross sectional area of bracket
7. Bracket fails
8. All motion of engine transferred to mountings
9. Modify material and/or surface treatment of bracket
10. Classification IV
The review of carefully prepared Preliminary Hazard Checklists is an important technique to
ensure that no obvious points are overlooked.

Definition of FMEA:
'The study of the potential failures that might occur in any part of a system, to determine the
probable effects of each on all the other parts of the system and on probable operational success.'
(BS 4778 17.7).
The technique of FMEA is based on a quite simple principle and its aim is to anticipate potential
failures so that their source can be eliminated. It consists of a detailed analysis of the
malfunctions that can be produced in the components of an engineering system and the
subsequent effects that these can have on sub-assemblies, assemblies and finally the product. A
complex product can fail in an almost infinite number of ways. Therefore, it seems impossible to
determine every possible failure mode of a given product. However, if the product is
disassembled to its very basic components the failure modes of these components is considerably
reduced. This means that the FMEA always has to be started at the most basic level of an
assembly, it proceeds from there upwards in the hierarchy of the system. FMEA is actually
called the 'bottom-up' method. To reduce the workload it may be advisable to follow and
examine only the failure modes with the highest probability of occurrence.
As an example consider the failures which can lead to an aircraft jet engine breakdown; they are
almost infinite. However, the main failure modes for the components of the engine such as its
fuel system are probably more limited. If the analyst considers the basic parts of the fuel system
e.g. fuel pump, fuel pipe, injection nozzle etc., the possible failure modes for this system are
even more reduced. By using this approach, working from component to sub-assembly, and subassembly to assembly, the analysis of the engine becomes manageable and it is possible to
establish a failure analysis for the complete engine.
The basic idea underlying the technique of FMEA is to discipline the fluxing thoughts and ideas
which occur in the mind of the designer during the design process, so that in following a
methodical procedure the designer is forced to follow these thoughts in a thorough manner. In its
most rigorous form, an FMEA is a summary of the engineer's thoughts (including an analysis of
every conceivable item that can go wrong, based on experience and past problems), as he/she
designs a component or system.
Over the years the FMEA method has been more and more refined and it is now virtually
standard practice to use a standardised form of presentation. Different product areas e.g.
aerospace, nuclear, and automobile industries might have a slightly different emphasis in certain
areas.
Outline
The technique of F.M.E.A. is used to assess any potential shortcomings in the Design and
Manufacture of a component, sub-assembly or finished product. The broad concept of F.M.E.A.
is that the design and process are carefully analysed and their potential shortcomings are
recorded, a numerical assessment is then made and these assessments are then ranked for action.
When carried out correctly, an F.M.E.A. enables engineers to look at all aspects of the design
and process and then to highlight where cost effective action can be taken.
The analysis will show where action is needed to achieve reduced warranty costs, scrap costs,
inspection costs and W.I.P. costs. It will also help in the marketing area to improve sales and

obtain new orders. The achievement of a high degree of safety where safety critical products are
involved will be helped by F.M.E.A. techniques.
When To Use F.M.E.A.
F.M.E.A. can be carried out at any stage of a products development from its initial conception to
its final manufacture. The most beneficial times to use the technique are:
1. At the concept stage, when outlines and specifications are being set and when
'mock ups' are being made
2. As soon as the design is laid down but prior to any manufacturing being started
3. When the design has been produced and the process is being laid down
4. At a stage when major modifications are to be carried out. Again at design and
process alterations
5. When actions have been highlighted and corrective actions have been taken an
F.M.E.A. should be re-assessed.
Value of the Technique
The value of the technique is that it ensures all risks are identified and that action is taken. The
fact that all the information is recorded, reduces significantly the chance of a risk being
overlooked. If the designs and processes are analysed correctly, the technique has great value
both in the manufacturing areas and in the marketing areas.
F.M.E.A. gives a high degree of assurance and confidence that the product can be produced to
give a high degree of satisfaction to both the employees and potential customers. It will generate
confidence in the design, manufacture, quality and reliability of a product. The stored documents
will provide ready references if a problem should develop.
Design F.M.E.A.
A design F.M.E.A. should be carried out at the earliest possible stage in the life of a product. It is
used to ascertain that the product will carry out its function correctly when produced. To ensure
that the product can be manufactured as simply as possible with no avoidable constraints e.g.
tighter tolerances than necessary. Each feature must be analysed for potential failure, presuming
that it will be manufactured to the given drawings and specifications.
Once the design is beyond the concept stage and advanced issue drawings are available, each
dimension can be assessed. The design F.M.E.A. follows an almost childlike simplicity,
questioning the need for the size, the tolerance or the presence of the feature.
Definitions and the Standard Worksheet
The product and its drawing number should be appended to each sheet before commencing the
F.M.E.A. Each column should now be filled out using the following definitions:

1. Part/Process Requirements - indicates as precisely as possible the function of the part or the
process.
2. Deviation - this is the potential failure mode, which should be identified as clearly as possible
in the following manner:
What could possibly go wrong?
How can the part fail to meet specification?
What would a customer consider to be unacceptable, regardless of engineering
specifications?
Typical deviations are:o

Broken

Fatigue

Distortion

Omitted

Leaking

Loose

Rough

Mis-assembled

3. Effect(s) - at this stage assume that the indicated deviation has occurred, then describe what
the customer might notice or experience. Some examples of effects of failure are:o

Operation impaired

Poor finish

Noise

Lack of security

Lack of power

Intermittent operation

4. Cause(s) - list each potential cause of failure which can be assigned to each deviation.
o

Incorrect material

Assembly error

Overheating

Tool damaged

Part omitted

Overstressed

5. Ratings - once each of the categories has been completed a rating can be applied. Each rating
is a subjective assessment of the degree to which each of the above items can affect the part or
process. The ratings are listed. The ratings should be agreed by the team as a whole and
appended to the form at the initial condition stage.
The importance of the team make up becomes apparent at this stage, since knowledge of
warranty returns on similar products for example, is a key requirement to establish occurrence.
The ratings are based upon what could happen and therefore it is unlikely that individual
engineers would give each category the same value. It is important therefore that the same team
remains together.
o

Severity - estimate the severity of the effect of failure to the customer on a scale
of 1 - 10. Severity is the factor that represents the seriousness of the failure to the
customer after it has occurred.

Complexity - this is an indication of the number of items or operations needed to

complete the item being analysed. The estimate is on a scale of 1 - 5.

Occurrence - the estimate of occurrence is on a base of 1 - 10 and is judged by the

engineer from his knowledge that the fault, a) will occur in the future life of the
product or b) has already occurred

Detection - is an estimate of the probability, that a defect caused by the indicated

failure will leave the manufacturing area and reach the customer. Assuming that
the cause of failure has happened, detection is an estimate of the ability of the
quality system to prevent shipment and is made on a scale of 1 - 5.

6. Risk Priority Number (R.P.N.) - the Risk Priority Number is a calculation achieved by the
multiplication of the values selected for Occurrence, Severity, Detection and Complexity.
SEVERITY x OCCURRENCE x DETECTION x COMPLEXITY = R.P.N.
This value can then be used to assess the design or process. Once the design or process has been
evaluated the improvement process can be started. Action must be taken on the high R.P.N.
values, but where an individual valuation is high, this item should be considered in the action
list. The objective must be to minimise i) the R.P.N value and ii) each individual value. This
however must be achieved in a cost-effective manner with every regard for safety.
7. Corrective Action - corrective actions must be logged and actions. Once the action has been
taken the F.M.E.A. should be re-assessed and a new R.P.N. value produced. Since the aim is
'Continuous Improvement' in the whole product range, F.M.E.A's should be continuously reassessed, to achieve as low an R.P.N. value as possible. Obviously priorities must be established
with safety and cost effectiveness being foremost consideration.

An F.M.E.A. should determine what could:

o

Prevent the part from operating

Cause the part to be unacceptable to the Customer

Reduce the parts life

Endanger the end application or user

Corrective Actions
The F.M.E.A. will identify the need for:
o

More testing to prove design adequacy

Dimensional reviews

More design work to eliminate a hazard

Design work to improve the functioning of the product

Highlight the need for special care where a risk has been identified and there is no
immediate answer

Specialised training

The need for a further review of manufacturing capacity

FMECA (Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis).

Definition of FMECA:
'The study of the potential failures that might occur in any part of a system to determine the
probable effect of each on all the other parts of the system and on probable operational success,'
the results of which are ranked in order of seriousness.1 (BS 4778 17.8).
The obvious method of displaying this is to do exactly as it says, i.e. put them in order, the most
serious at the top!
Another method is to plot a graph of RPN against Criticality of Hazard e.g.

Conclusion
Today, many companies are finding that an FMEA is a contractual requirement, e.g. a procedural
document stating:
1. What components/sub-assemblies/assemblies/products should be analysed, using
FMEA?
2. Who should perform it? (Status level - perhaps Senior Designer).
3. Method of results presentation.
4. What corrective action has been performed?
Obviously design confidentiality will have to be respected, and in some cases only a limited
amount of information would be issued to the prospective customer.

Tailoring of FMEA Standard Presentation

As previously stated, a standard form of presentation is used these days to show the results of the
analysis. However, different industries would perhaps include more information. For example,
Reliability.
Definition of Reliability:
'The probability that a component, system or product will perform without failure for a specified
period of TIME, under specified operating conditions.'
In your particular industry, you could consider including some information on the reliability of
the part in question on the FMEA form. Typical information, which could be fairly confidential,
could be MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) or FPMH (Failures Per Million Hours) of the
part. The RPN obtained from the FMEA, (even though the numbers are subjective), does bear a
passing resemblance to the reliability of the part!
Tangible Benefits
o

Software programs are available for FMEA'S, which will reduce the time taken to
perform the analysis, relative to hand calculations.

The procedure of performing an FMEA could open a previously undiscovered

window to allow a new perspective to be obtained on product safety.