Effect Criteria: Severity of Effect on Product (customer Effect) Rank

Failure to Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves 10
Meet Safety noncompliance with government regulation without warning.
and/or
Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves 9
Regulatory
noncompliance with government regulation with warning.
Requiremen
ts
Loss or Loss of primary function (vehicle inoperable, does not effect safe vehicle 8
Degradation operation ).
of Primary
Degradation of primary function (vehicle operable, but at reduced level of 7
Function
performance).
Loss or Loss of secondary function (vehicle operable, but comfort/convenience 6
Degradation function inoperable).
of
Degradation of secondary function (vehicle operable, but comfort/convenience 5
Secondary
function at reduced level of performance).
Function
Annoyance Appearance or Audible Noise, vehicle operable, item does not conform and 4
noticed by most customers (>75%).
Appearance or Audible Noise, vehicle operable, item does not conform and 3
noticed by many customers (50%).
Appearance or Audible Noise, vehicle operable, item does not conform and 2
noticed by discriminating customers (25%).
No effect No discernible effect. 1

Table Cr1 Suggested DFMEA Severity Evaluation Criteria

Likelihood Criteria; Occurrence of Cause-DFMEA (Design life/reliability of Criteria; Occurrence Rank
of failure item/vehicle) of Cause-DFMEA
(Incident per
item/vehicle)
Very High New technology/new design with no history 100 per thousand 10
1 in 10
High Failure is inevitable with new design, new application, or change in 50 per thousand 9
duty cycle/operating conditions. 1 in 20
Failure is likely with new design, new application, or change in duty 20 per thousand 8
cycle/operating conditions. 1 in 50
Failure is uncertain with new design, new application, or change in 10 per thousand 7
duty cycle/operating conditions. 1 in 100
Moderate Frequent failures associated with similar designs or in design 2 per thousand 6
simulation and testing. 1 in 500
Occasional failures associated with similar designs or in design .5 per thousand 5
simulation and testing. 1 in 2,000
Isolated failures associated with similar designs or in design .1 per thousand 4
simulation and testing. 1 in 10,000
Low Only isolated failures associated with almost identical designs or in .01 per thousand 3
design simulation and testing. 1 in 100,000
No observed failures associated with almost identical designs or in .001 per thousand 2
design simulation and testing. 1 in 1,000,000

Very Low Failure is eliminated through preventive control. Failure is eliminated 1

through preventive
control

Table Cr2 Suggested DFMEA Occurrence Evaluation Criteria

 Opportunity for Criteria: Likelihood of Detection by Design Control Rank Likelihood of
Detection Detection
No detection opportunity No current design control; cannot detect or is not analyzed. 10 Almost impossible

Not likely to detect at Design analysis/detection controls have a weak detection capability; virtual 9 Very remote
any stage analysis (e.g., CAE, FEA, etc.) is not correlated to expected actual operating
conditions
Post Design Freeze and Product verification/validation after design freeze and prior to launch with pass/fail 8 Remote
prior to launch testing (subsystem or system testing with acceptance criteria such as ride
handling, shipping evaluation, etc.).
Product verification/validation after design freeze and prior to launch with test to 7 Very low
failure testing (subsystem or system testing until failure occurs, testing of system
interactions etc.).
Product verification/validation after design freeze and prior to launch with 6 Low
degradation testing (subsystem or system testing after durability test, e.g.,
function check).
Prior to Design Freeze Product validation (reliability testing, development or validation tests) prior to 5 Moderate
design freeze using pass/fail testing (e.g., acceptance criteria for performance,
function checks, etc.).
Product validation (reliability testing, development or validation tests) prior to 4 Moderately High
design freeze using test to failure (e.g., until leaks, yields, cracks, etc.).
Product validation (reliability testing, development or validation tests) prior to 3 High
design freeze using degradation testing (e.g., data trends, before/after values,
etc.).

Virtual Analysis- Design analysis/detection controls have a strong detection capability; virtual 2 Very High
Correlated analysis (e.g., CAE, FEA, etc.) is highly correlated with actual or expected
operating conditions prior to design freeze.

Detection not applicable; Failure cause or failure mode can not occur because it is fully prevented through 1 Almost Certain
failure Prevention design solutions (e.g., proven design standard, best practice or common material,
etc.).

Table Cr3 Suggested DFMEA/PFMEA Prevention/Detection Evaluation Criteria