International

INTERNATIONAL Journal of Mechanical

JOURNAL Engineering and Technology (IJMET),
OF MECHANICAL ISSN 0976
ENGINEERING
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJMET)

ISSN 0976 6340 (Print)

ISSN 0976 6359 (Online) IJMET
Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013), pp. 191-199
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.7731 (Calculated by GISI) IAEME
www.jifactor.com

PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS ON END MILLING

PROCESS- A CRITICAL STUDY

Pravin Kumar .S1, Venkatakrishnan.R2, Vignesh Babu.S3

1
UG Graduate,Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Government College of Technology, Coimbatore.
2
UG Graduate,Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Government College of Technology, Coimbatore.
3
UG Graduate,Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore.

ABSTRACT

An FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) is a systematic method of identifying and
preventing product and process problems before they occur. FMEAs are focused on preventing
defects, enhancing safety, and increasing customer satisfaction. FMEAs are conducted in the product
design or process development stages, although conducting an FMEA on existing products and
processes can also yield substantial benefits. FMEA is precisely an analytical methodology used to
ensure that potential problems have been considered and addressed throughout the product and
process development cycle. It is essential to analyze the process before implementing and operating
the machine. In this work, the process failure mode effect and analysis of End Milling process is
done. A series of end milling process is done on several work pieces and the potential failure and
defects in the work piece and the tool are studied. These are categorized based on FMEA, risk
priority numbers are assigned to each one and by multiplying the ratings of occurrence, severity and
detection. Finally the most risky failure according to the RPM numbers is found and the cause and
effects along with the preventive measures are tabulated. This work serves as a failure prevention
guide for those who perform the end milling operation towards an effective milling.

KEYWORDS: Failure Modes, End Milling, Risk Priority Number, Depth of Cut, Cutting Speed.

1. INTRODUCTION

In order to satisfy the increasing demands of the customers for high quality and reliable
products, the manufacturers are forced to switch gears in their system so that they can deliver the
product at the expected quality and reliability. The challenge is to design in quality and reliability

191
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

early in the development cycle. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is used to identify
potential failure modes, determine their effect on the operation of the product, and identify actions to
mitigate the failures. With this the modes of failure and its effect on the component can be studied to
a satisfactory extend. As anticipation of every failure mode is not possible, the working team has to
strive to produce an extensive list covering major and most of the failure modes as possible.
Effective use of FMEAs can have a positive impact on an organizations bottom-line because of their
preventive nature. FMEA enhances further improvisation of both the design and manufacturing
processes in the future as it serves as a record of the current process in formations. With a strong and
reliable FMEA, it is possible that we can engineer to design out failures and produce reliable, safe,
and customer pleasing products. It is essential that such an effective analysis has to be carried out for
improving various mechanical processes so that the demand of the customers can be satisfied.

1.1 FAILURE MODE & EFFECT ANALYSIS

FMEA is an engineering technique used to identify, prioritize and alleviate potential
problems from the system, design, or process before the problems are actualized (According to
Omdahl, 1988). What does the term Failure Modes imply? Lots of definitions for this term can be
obtained. According to the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), a failure mode is the way in
which a product or process could fail to perform its desired function (AIAG, 1995). Some sources
define failure mode as a description of an undesired cause-effect chain of events (MIL-STD-
1629A, 1994). Others define failure mode as a link in the cause-effect chain (Stamatis, 1995:
Humphries, 1994). To conclude with we consider the term failure mode as any errors or defects in a
process, design, or item, especially those that affect the customer, and can be potential or actual. The
term Effect Analysis also invites various definitions. The effect analysis is The analysis of the
outcome of the failure on the system, on the process and the service (Stamatis, 1995: Humphries,
1994). To put it simply Effects analysis refers to studying the consequences of those failures.

1.2 ROLE OF FMEA IN MILLING

The role of milling cutter or the mill is the most critical aspect that determines the out coming
products finish, accuracy and also the life of milling cutter is a major factor determining the cost of
the component. The dimensional accuracy and the type of finish are the expected parameters in the
component and when this fails the whole process and the product becomes a scrap. The failure of the
component is as specific as the failure of the process and failure of the cutter. The failure of the
product may be because of the properties of the cutter or by design parameters of the machine or
even by the properties of the metal used in the component and the cutter. The various modes of
failure of the process may be like chipping or chip packing or breakage of cutter etc. These may be
the failures caused as a result of improper milling but it is very important to analyze the failure
modes, and effects of end milling processes.

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF FMEA

In FMEA, failures are prioritized according to how serious their consequences are, how
frequently they occur and how easily they can be detected. This FMEA conducted can be compiled
and documented and this can be used in future to design an effective process cycle with an aim of
avoiding the failures mentioned in the FMEA table. This is known as Design Failure Mode and
effect analysis (DFMEA). Later it is used for process control, before and during ongoing operation of
the process. Ideally, FMEA begins during the earliest conceptual stages of design and continues
throughout the life of the product or service. FMEA helps select remedial actions that reduce
cumulative impacts of life-cycle consequences (risks) from a systems failure (fault). The various
steps in Process Failure and Effect analysis are as follows:

192
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

Reviewing the process

List the potential effects and modes of failure
Assign a severity rating
Assign an occurrence rating
Assign a detection rating
Calculate the risk priority number (RPN) for each mode of failure
Take action to eliminate or reduce the high-risk failure modes
Calculate the resulting RPN as the failure modes are reduced or eliminated
The FMEA in this work is done on End Milling by conducting several trails in vertical milling
machine and assigning them severity, occurrence and detection ratings and calculating their RPN.

2.1 STEP 1: REVIEWING THE PROCESS

The blueprint (or engineering drawing) of the product and a detailed flowchart of the
operation are reviewed .The process parameters of the conducted tests are as follows:
Machine : Vertical Milling Machine
Make : M1TR HMT
Tool : HSS
Surface Table : 1700 x 300 mm
Work Piece Material : Cast Iron
Cutting Speed Used : 750 rpm

Fig1 HMT Milling Machine Fig 2 End Mill Fig3 Work piece with failure

2.2 STEP 2: POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MODES OF FAILURE

Several trials were conducted with the above mentioned process parameters in the
aforementioned machine and parameters. From the list of the reading obtained from the trials and the
reading recorded in the previous failure charts the potential effects and failure modes are obtained.
These failure modes and their effects are charted separately for the sake of calculating and assigning
the ratings and risk priority numbers. With the failure modes listed on the FMEA Worksheet, each
failure mode is reviewed and the potential effects of the failure should it occur are identified. For
some of the failure modes, there are only one effect, while for other modes there are several effects.
This step must be thorough because this information will feed into the assignment of risk rankings
for each of the failures. It is helpful to think of this step as an if-then process: If the failure occurs,
then what are the consequences.

2.3 STEP 3: OCCURANCE RATING

In this step it is necessary to look at the number of times a failure occurs. This can be done by
looking at similar products or processes and the failure modes that have been documented. A failure
mode is given an occurrence ranking (O), again 110. If the occurrence is high (meaning > 4 for non-
safety failure modes and > 1 when the severity-number from step 1 is 1 or 0) actions are to be

193
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

determined. Occurrence also can be defined as %. If a non-safety issue happened less than 1%, we
can give 1 to it. It is based on product and customer specification. The following table gives the
values of the Occurrence Ratings.

Table 1. Occurance Ratings

Occurrence Rating Meaning
1 Failure eliminated or no
know occurrence
2,3 Low or very few
4,5,6 Moderate or few
occasional
7,8 High or repeated failure
occurrence
9,10 Very high rate of failure or
inevitable failures

2.4 STEP 4: SEVERITY RATING

The severity ranking is an estimation of how serious the effects would be if a given failure
did occur. In some cases it is clear, because of past experience, how serious the problem would be. In
other cases, it is necessary to estimate the severity based on the knowledge of the process. There
could be other factors to consider (contributors to the overall severity of the event being analyzed).
Calculating the severity levels provides for a classification ranking that encompasses safety,
production continuity, scrap loss, etc. user. Each effect is given a severity number (S) from 1 (no
danger) to 10 (critical). These numbers help an engineer to prioritize the failure modes and their
effects. If the sensitivity of an effect has a number 9 or 10, actions are considered to change the
design by eliminating the failure mode, if possible, or protecting the user from the effect. A severity
rating of 9 or 10 is generally reserved for those effects which would cause injury to a user or
otherwise result in limitation.

Table 2. Severity Rating

Severity Rating Description
1-2 Failure is of such minor nature that the
customer (internal or external) will probably
not detect the failure.
3-5 Failure will result in slight customer
annoyance
and/or slight deterioration of part or system
performance
6-7 Failure will result in customer dissatisfaction
and annoyance and/or deterioration of part or
system performance.
8-9 Failure will result in high degree of customer
dissatisfaction and cause non-functionality of
system
10 Failure will result in major customer
dissatisfaction and cause non-system operation
or non-compliance with regulations

194
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

2.5 STEP 5: DETECTION RATING

This section provides a ranking based on an assessment of the probability that the failure
mode will be detected given the controls that are in place. The proper inspection methods need to be
chosen. First, we should look at the current controls of the system, that prevent failure modes from
occurring or which detect the failure before it reaches the customer. Hereafter one should identify
testing, analysis, monitoring and other techniques that can be or have been used on similar systems to
detect failures. Based on these studies one can effectively understand about the detection of the
failure. Based on these detection ratings are given. This ranks the ability of planned tests and
inspections to remove defects or detect failure modes in time. The assigned detection number
measures the risk that the failure will escape detection. Here the rating is given in reverse order ie
when the rating is lower, the probability of identifying the failure is high and when the rating is high
the probability of identifying the failure is very less. So the assigned Detection rating gives the
understanding of how easily the failure can escape the detection of customer. The following table
gives the detection rating.

Table 3 Detection Rating

Detection Rating Description
1 Very certain that the failure will be
detected
2-4 High probability that the defect will
be detected
5-6 Moderate probability that the failure
will be detected
7-8 Low probability that the failure will
be detected
9 Very Low probability that the defect
will be detected.
10 Fault will be passed to customer
undetected

2.6 STEP 6: RISK PRIORITY NUMBER

The risk priority number (RPN) is simply calculated by multiplying the severity ranking
times the occurrence ranking times the detection ranking for each item.

Risk Priority Number = Severity Occurrence Detection

The total risk priority number should be calculated by adding all of the risk priority numbers.
This number alone is meaningless because each FMEA has a different number of failure modes and
effects. However, it can serve as a gauge to compare the revised total RPN once the recommended
actions have been instituted. RPN play an important part in the choice of an action against failure
modes. They are threshold values in the evaluation of these actions. The failure with highest RPN
requires the highest priority for corrective action. This means it is not always the failure modes with
the highest severity numbers that should be treated first. There could be less severe failures, but
which occur more often and are less detectable. These actions can include specific inspection, testing
or quality procedures, redesign (such as selection of new components), adding more redundancy and
limiting environmental stresses or operating range. After these values are allocated, recommended
actions with targets, responsibility and dates of implementation are noted. Once the actions have

195
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

been implemented in the design/process, the new RPN should be checked, to confirm the
improvements. Whenever a design or a process changes, the FMEA should be updated.

Table 4: FMEA for End Milling

S Problem Effect Severity Occurrence Detection Causes Solutions RPN
No Rating Rating Rating
1 Chip Poor chip 7 8 7 Too great Adjust feed 392
packing dispersion cutting depth or speed
Tool wear 7 5 Not enough Use end 245
chip room mill fewer
flutes
Change in 6 8 Not enough Apply more 336
tolerance and coolant coolant.
finishing Use air
pressure
2 Rough Degradation of 4 8 7 Feed too fast Slow down 224
surface standards to correct
finish feed
8 7 Slow speed Use higher 224
speed
8 4 Too much Regrind 128
wear earlier
stage
Change in 4 2 Chip biting Cut less 32
tolerance amount per
pass
8 2 No end tooth Add margin 64
concavity (touch
primary
with
oilstone)
3 Burr Increases tool 5 8 4 Too much Regrind 160
wear wear on sooner
primary relief
Dimensional 6 8 Incorrect Correct 240
inaccuracies condition milling
condition
6 3 Improper Change the 90
cutting angle cutting
angle
4 Defected job 3 5 Too tough Change to 120
8 condition easier
condition
No 3 9 Lack of Repair 216
dimensional accuracy machine or
accuracy (machine & holder
holder)
3 9 Not enough Change 216
rigidity machine or
(machine & holder or
holder) condition
4 3 Not sufficient Use end 96
number of mill with
flutes greater
number of
flutes
5 Dimensional 4 8 8 256
inaccuracies Feed too fast Slow down
to correct
feed
No 6 8 Too great a Reduce 192
perpendicula cutting cutting
196
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

r side amount amount

High tool wear 2 5 Too long a Use proper 40
flute length length tool.
or long Hold shank
overall length deeper
2 3 Not sufficient Use end 24
number of mill with
flutes greater
number of
flutes
6 High Tool 5 6 8 Feed too fast Slow down 240
wear to proper
feed
7 8 Feed too fast Slow down 280
on first cut on first bite
3 8 Not enough Change 120
rigidity of rigid
Chipping machine tool machine
& holder tool or
holder
Dimensional 3 9 Loose holder Tighten 135
inaccuracies tool holder
3 9 Loose holder Tighten 135
(workpiece) workpiece
fixture
3 9 Lack of Use 135
rigidity (tool) shortest end
mill
available.
Hold shank
deeper. Try
down cut
4 6 Teeth too Change to 120
sharp lower
cutting
angle,
primary
relief
7 Wear Reduced tool 6 6 8 Speed too Slow down, 288
life fast use more
coolant
3 7 Hard material Use higher 126
grade, tool
material,
add surface
treatment
3 2 Biting chips Change 36
feed speed
to change
chip size or
clear chips
with
coolant or
air pressure
Dimensional 4 8 Improper Increase 192
inaccuracies feed speed feed speed.
(too slow) Try down
cut
4 5 Improper Change to 120
cutting angle correct
cutting
angle
4 5 Too low a Change to 120
primary relief larger relief
angle angle

197
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

8 Breakage Reduced tool 8 6 8 Feed too fast Slow down 384

life feed
6 7 Too large Adjust to 336
cutting smaller
amount cutting
amount per
teeth
6 3 Too long Hold shank 144
flute length deeper, use
or long shorter end
overall length mill
4 3 Too much Regrind at 96
wear earlier
stage
9 Chattering Reduced tool 6 7 8 Feed and Correct 336
life speed too fast feed and
speed
3 8 Not enough Use better 144
rigidity machine
(machine & tool or
holder) holder or
change
condition
Disturbing 4 4 Too much Change to 96
noises relief angle smaller
relief angle.
Add margin
(touch
primary
with oil
stone)
Deviation in 3 8 Loose holder Hold 144
tolerance limits (workpiece) workpiece
tighter
7 7 Cutting too Correct to 294
deep smaller
cutting
depth
3 5 Too long Hold shank 90
flute length deeper, use
or long shorter end
overall length mill or try
down cut
10 Short tool High cost 4 7 6 Too much Regrind at 168
life cutting earlier
(dull teeth) friction stage
5 6 Tough work Select 120
material premium
tool
3 6 Improper Change 72
cutting angle cutting
angle &
primary
11 Side wall High tool wear 6 6 8 Feed Rate is Reduced 288
taper in heavy feed rates
Workpiece Dimensional 4 6 High Use short 144
inaccuracies Overhang of end mill
Tool and hold
the shank
deeper
3 4 Too few Use 72
Flutes endmill
with multi
flute

198
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) IAEME

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

From the analysis, it has been found that the chip packing due to excess cutting depth has the
highest risk priority number. This can be reduced by varying the feed rate and speed of spindle. To
reduce tool breakage due to excess feed rate and very high spindle speed, we have to perform the
process in rated speed and acceptable feed rates. To reduce chattering better tool holding and work
holding devices are to be used and also we have to follow the rated speed and feed rates. To reduce
chipping, initial speed has to be minimum and proper cutting speed is to be followed. To reduce tool
wear proper lubrication and parameter perfection has to be achieved.

4. CONCLUSION

Thus the End Milling process has been analyzed and the expected failure modes have been
noted. From the results of the analysis the defects with greater risk priority number have been
selected. The causes, effects and the possible alternatives are given along with the ratings and
priorities. The Risk Priority numbers of the defects are given which indicates the necessity of care
for defect free end milling process. Thus this analysis will be helpful as a reference guide to the end
milling process failures. These corrective actions should be considered before end milling process to
achieve an effective end milling process.

REFERENCE

1. V Janarthanan, D Rajenthira Kumar. Root Cause analysis & process failure mode and effect
analysis of tig welding on ss 3041 material(Proceeding of NC MISAA 2013, copyright 2013
PSGCT)
2. Aravind.P, Rooban Babu.R, Arun Dhakshinamoorthy, Venkat Prabhu.N, Subramanian . An
integrated approach for prediction of failures by process failure mode and effect analysis (pfmea)
in mig welding-a predictive analysis (ISBN-978-93-82208-00-6)
3. D.H.Stamatis. failure mode and effect analysis : FMEA from theory to execution(Book 2nd
Edition(1995)
4. Robin E. McDermott, Raymond J. Mikulak, Michael R. Beauregard. The basics of FMEA-
Productivity press(1996)
5. Aravind.P, Subramanian.SP, SriVishnu.G, Vignesh.P. Process failure mode and effect analysis on
tig welding process - a criticality study(ISSN-223-1963)
6. Failure modes and effects analysis (fmea)- Copyright 2004 Institute for Healthcare
Improvement.
7. Carbide depot inc. A troubleshooting manual- 1474 Pettyjohn Road Bessemer, AL 35022 USA.
8. Kalpakjian. Manufacturing process for engineering materials (Pearson Education India, 1992)
9. S. Madhava Reddy, Optimization of Surface Roughness in High-Speed End Milling Operation
using Taguchis Method, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering & Technology
(IJMET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 249 - 258, ISSN Print: 0976 6340, ISSN Online: 0976
6359.
10. M.Chithirai Pon Selvan and Dr.N.Mohanasundara Raju, Influence of Abrasive Waterjet Cutting
Conditions on Depth of Cut of Mild Steel, International Journal of Design and Manufacturing
Technology (IJDMT), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 48 - 57, ISSN Print: 0976 6995, ISSN
Online: 0976 7002.
11. A.Mariajayaprakash, Dr.T. SenthilVelan and K.P.Vivekananthan, Optimisation of Shock
Absorber Parameters using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and Taguchi Method,
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering & Technology (IJMET), Volume 3, Issue 2,
2012, pp. 328 - 345, ISSN Print: 0976 6340, ISSN Online: 0976 6359.

199