JFAPBC (2005) 2:5-10 © ASM International

DOI: 10.1361/15477020522933 1547-7029 / $19.00

A • N • A • L• Y • S • I • S by George Pantazopoulos and George Tsinopoulos

Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (PFMEA):

A Structured Approach for Quality Improvement
in the Metal Forming Industry
Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is one potential tool with extended use in reliability engineering for
the electrical and electronic components production field as well as in complicated assemblies (aerospace and
automotive industries). The main purpose is to reveal system weaknesses and thereby minimize the risk of failure
occurrence. The FMEA technique is used in the design stage of a system or product (DFMEA) as well as in the
manufacturing process (PFMEA). Currently, the implementation of quality systems (such as ISO 9001, QS9000,
TS 16949, etc.) requires the establishment of preventive procedures; therefore, the use of risk analysis methods,
such as FMEA, is mandatory. This paper introduces the use of this technique in a critical process in the metal
forming industry.

Introduction— tools and techniques are presented in development of a rigorous FMEA

The Quality Toolbox
Modern companies require success-
ful implementation and operation of
quality-management systems in order
to develop strong customer/supplier
relationships, increase profitability,
and contribute to development and
growth. Modern quality systems con-
verge to become total quality manage-
ment, based on management commit-
ment, people involvement, process
management, and continual improve-
ment. The recently revised ISO 9000
quality-management system is based
on the following eight management
principles:[1]
• Customer focus
• Leadership
• People involvement
• Process approach
• Systems approach
• Continual improvement
• Factual decision making
• Organization/supplier mutually
beneficial relationships
The principal quality-improvement
Table 1. ensures preventive actions have been
One of the most important quality- identified prior to an incident and are
management techniques is FMEA. It implemented without delay. In addi-
is devoted to minimizing the risks of tion, standard EN ISO 9001:2000
failure and understanding what foresees the implementation of a
actions need to be taken as a result of documented procedure within the
significant unplanned events. The scope of preventive actions (paragraph
Table 1 List of Principal Quality Tools and Techniques
No. Name Use/Characterization
1 Check sheet/run chart Seven quality-control tools
2 Process flowchart
3 Scatter diagram
4 Pareto diagram
5 Control chart
6 Cause-and-effect diagram (“fishbone”)
7 Histogram
8 Statistical process control Quality-management techniques
9 Process capability
10 Quality function deployment
11 Design of experiments
12 Brainstorming
13 Failure modes and effects analysis
14 Excellence model
15 Benchmarking
16 Business process re-engineering
17 Process mapping
18 Balanced scorecard
19 Six sigma

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Volume 5(2) April 2005 5

 Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)
8.5.3).[2] A FMEA is also an impor-
tant tool in a failure analysis inves-
tigation.[3]
This technique was developed in
the aerospace and defense industries
in order to determine the failure
events that could occur within a given
system (e.g., an airplane) and what
the associated effects would be if they
occurred. This technique is very
effective and time-intensive. [4] A
FMEA is an analytical quality plan-
ning tool dedicated to the identifi-
cation of the main potential failure
modes and their associated effects at
the product, service, process, and/or
design stages. Its effective use could
lead to numerous reductions (im-
provements) in:[5]
• Internal defects (during and after
the manufacturing process)
• Customer complaints
• Failures in the field
• Performance deficiencies
• Warranty claims
In addition, successful application
of a FMEA could lead to improved
customer satisfaction in products and
services produced by reliable manu-
facturing processes.
There are two main classes of
FMEA:
• Design FMEA is employed to
evaluate the potential failure modes
in a product or service that are a
consequence of weaknesses in the
design.
• Process FMEA is mainly employed
to assess the potential failure modes
in the stage of a manufacturing
process that could lead to a non-
conforming product or service (out
of specifications).
The application of FMEA studies
increases from year to year. A survey
6 Volume 5(2) April 2005
(continued)
published by the Institution of duction processes is soft annealing.
Mechanical Engineers (U.K.) showed Quality planning applied to this
that the use of FMEA in the manu- process is shown in Table 2.[7] Grain
facturing sector is increasing by up size control is the parameter for the
to approximately 5% a year.[6] annealing process and is also the
With plants situated in Greece and principal inspection method required
Bulgaria, HALCOR S.A., a member by the product specification. Grain
of the VIOHALCO Group, special- size beyond the specified limits
izes in the manufacture of various greatly affects the stability of the
forms of copper and copper alloys deep drawing as well as the quality
(e.g., slabs, tubes, strips, sheets, disks). of the cups. Small grain size (<0.070
To achieve the objectives/targets and
strategic plans toward continual im-
provement, the company has imple-
mented various quality techniques,
such as FMEA and process capa-
bility.
Description of
FMEA Framework
Because the demands of the client
and the final user approach world-
class manufacturing, the fabrication
of CuZn30 brass (cartridge brass)
disks requires the application of
advanced quality planning in the
critical production steps. Examples of
the basic requirements include close
monitoring of the quality character-
istics of the raw materials at every
critical production step, traceability
and identification of the final product
to the cast number, monitoring and
handling of rejected pieces and
nonconformities, and implemen-
tation of a preventive action plan.
C26000 brass is a common alloy
in the ammunition industry. Brass
disks made from alloy C26000
(CuZn30) are the raw material used
in the multiple deep-drawing passes
and intermediate annealing necessary
for the manufacture of cartridge
cases.
The typical process flowchart for
brass disk manufacturing is shown in
Fig. 1. One of the major critical pro- Fig. 1 General disk production flowchart
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
Table 2 Quality Plan for Brass Disk Annealing
S/N(a) Phase Control Parameter Method Sampling Rate Acceptance Criteria Responsibility
1 Annealing Grain size (GS) ASTM E-112 2 samples per row 0.070-0.125 mm Lab officer
(Abrams 3 circles)
(a) S/N: serial number

mm) creates difficulties in drawing,
and decreased material ductility
sometimes results in cup cracking.
Large grain size (>0.125 mm) often
leads to a rough cup surface (orange-
peel effect).
Grain-size heterogeneity (e.g.,
duplex structure) is also a very serious
problem that could lead to critical
failures due to anisotropic effects.
Micrographs of the characteristic soft-
annealed brass disk microstructure are
shown in Fig. 2 and 3. In Fig. 2, the
microstructure corresponds to a grain
size within the specified limits but
having a nondesirable heterogeneity
(very small and large grains together).
In Fig. 3, the three-circles grid, re-
quired for measurement by the Abrams
technique, according to ASTM E-112,
is incorporated in the micrograph.[8]
The purpose of this application is
to decrease the grain-size variation
(heterogeneity) as well as prevent the
probability of nonconforming pro-
duct occurrence (grain size out of
specification limits). Consequently,
the result is an increase in process
capability, Cp:
Cp = (USL − LSL)/6σ
where USL is the upper specification
limit, LSL is the lower specification
limit, and σ is the statistical variation.
Risk Assessment
The principal steps of a FMEA
application include:
1. Exhaustive determination of pro-
cess parameters (brainstorming)
2. Determination of the potential
failure modes
3. Determination of the failure
effects on the final product or system
4. Determination of the principal
root causes
5. Estimation of the severity of the
failure on the final product or system
6. Estimation of the failure occur-
rence (probability of appearance)
7. Assessment of the detectability of
the failure
8. Calculation of the risk priority
number (RPN)
9. Recommendation of preventive
actions
10. Reassessment of the RPN under
the new process conditions
The FMEA results are then pre-
sented in an appropriate table, to-
gether with the RPN and the three
important indicators of failure: sever-
ity, occurrence, and detectability. The
RPN is calculated as the product of the

Fig. 2 Microstructure of soft-annealed CuZn30 (C26000 alloy). This
micrograph corresponds to a grain size of approximately 0.090
mm, with a high degree of heterogeneity (small and large grains
together). Electrochemically etched using 700 mL methanol and
300 mL HNO3 solution. Original magnification 50×
Fig. 3 Microstructure of soft-annealed CuZn30 (C26000 alloy). This
micrograph corresponds to a grain size of approximately 0.130
mm, homogeneously dispersed. Electrochemically etched using 700
mL methanol and 300 mL HNO3 solution. Original magnifica-
tion 50×

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Volume 5(2) April 2005 7

 Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)
three characteristic failure indicators:
RPN = (Severity) × (Occurrence)
× (Detectability) (Eq 1)
where severity is the failure criticality
indicator and is graded within the
range of 1 to 10 (1, low criticality;
10, high criticality); occurrence is the
failure frequency indicator and is
graded within the range of 1 to 10
(1, low frequency; 10, high fre-
quency); and detectability is the
failure detection capability and is
graded within the range of 1 to 10
with decreasing capability (1, high
detection capability; 10, low detec-
tion capability).
A FMEA is a very appropriate risk
analysis technique not only in the
Table 3 FMEA concerning the Power Supply System
8 Volume 5(2) April 2005
(continued)
quality field but also in the occupa-
tional health/safety and environmen-
tal sector, which is of great interest
in the insurance industry (risk analy-
sis of industrial accidents with major
environmental and/or human impact).
Procedure of the Specific
FMEA Application
A FMEA is applied to the brass
disk annealing process with the goal
of optimizing the operational
performance by decreasing the RPN
and increasing the process capability.
In order to facilitate the application
of a FMEA, the failures are divided
into two main categories:
• Failures allocated to the energy-
supplied system
• Failures allocated to the method
affected by human factors
For every single failure mode, the
corresponding columns concerning
potential effect(s) of failure and po-
tential cause(s)/mechanism(s) of
failure are completed (Tables 3 and
4). Furthermore, the current method
for failure-cause determination is
reported by completing the column
titled “Current Process Controls.” In
order to quantify the failure risk
(RPN), it is necessary to evaluate the
principal FMEA indicators: severity
(effects of failure), occurrence
(frequency of failure cause), and
detectability (process controls). These
indicators are estimated by using a
statistical analysis of the process
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
Table 4 FMEA concerning the Method and Human Factors
results and also by experience based
on the specific production process.
After the evaluation of the failure
risks, a matrix of risk prioritization is
created. Then, the FMEA team
should propose the implementation
of further actions (recommended or
preventive), mainly in the cases where
the maximum RPN appeared. After
the realization of the preventive action
plan, follow-up on the FMEA indi-
cators (severity, occurrence, detect-
ability) and reassessment of risk
(RPN) are employed, and new im-
provement actions could also be
proposed toward the minimization of
the RPN. Strong supporting docu-
mentation and records are necessary
in order to collect facts concerning the
failure control and to monitor the
preventive action plan. Delegation of
responsibilities to the appropriate
authorities, as well as the creation and
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
review of action plans (Gantt charts),
are a few good practices for handling
preventive action projects.
Apart from the technical sugges-
tions concerning risk minimization,
it is clear that economic and financial
criteria may strongly affect the
decision-making process.
The analysis of the FMEA appli-
cation is presented in detail in Tables
3 and 4.
Conclusions
The application of a FMEA reveals
the hidden process weaknesses, leading
to the quantification of failure-
related indicators/failure risks and the
creation of a prioritization matrix for
further improvement actions. Risk
reassessment and further preventive
action planning could lead to effective
risk minimization. The use of a
FMEA can also be applied success-
fully in various other business sectors
(e.g., supplies, sales, financial), leading
to continual improvement and in-
creasing the bottom-line results.
References
1. “Fundamentals and Vocabulary,” BS EN
ISO 9000:2000, International Organiza-
tion for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
2. “Requirements,” BS EN ISO 90001:2000,
International Organization for Standard-
ization, Geneva, Switzerland.
3. D. Dennies: “The Organization of a Fail-
ure Investigation,” Pract. Fail. Anal., 2002,
2(3), pp. 11-41.
4. R. Latino and K. Latino: Root-Cause
Analysis—Improving Performance for
Bottom Line Results, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 1999.
5. J.R. Aldridge and B.G. Dale: in Managing
Quality, B.G. Dale, ed., Blackwell Pub-
lishing, Oxford, U.K., 2002, pp. 352-65.
6. J. Garside and C. Tsinopoulos: Guide to
Manufacturing Excellence: Performance
Volume 5(2) April 2005 9
 Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) (continued)

Analysis of Finalists and Winners Mx 2000-
2003, The Institution of Mechanical Engi-
neers, London, 2004.
7. G. Tsinopoulos and G. Pantazopoulos:
“Application of Failure Mode and Analysis
Method (FMEA) as a Quality Improve-
ment Technique in Metal Working In-
dustry,” Proc. Second Metallic Materials
Conference, Nov 25-26, 2004 (National
Technical University of Athens), Hellenic
Metallurgical Society, Athens, pp. 421-
26 (in Greek).
8. “Standard Test Method for Determining
Average Grain Size,” ASTM E-112,
American Society for Testing and Mater-
ials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1996.
George Pantazopoulos and George
Tsinopoulos, HALCOR S.A. Metal
Works, Quality Control and Quality
Assurance Department, 252 Piraeus
Str., 17778 Athens, Greece. Contact
e-mail: gpantaz@halcor.vionet.gr.

Call for Case Histories

The Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention is now
actively seeking manuscripts for a new section focusing
on case histories. The addition of case histories to JFAP
is intended to provide a broad range of peer reviewed
content pertaining to specific situations such as failure
mechanisms, materials, environments, testing and
inspection methods, and analysis procedures. Case
histories will be published in the journal first, but will
later be included in the Failure Analysis Center Online,
an archival database of case histories and other articles
related to failure analysis.
Three broad categories of case histories in failure analysis
and prevention will be published:
• Failure Analysis Case Histories
• Testing and Inspection Case Histories (such as specific
NDT processes and procedures)
• Engineering Assessment Case Histories (such a specific
processes and procedures in fitness for ser vice
evaluations)
The case histories will focus on processes, procedures,
findings, and recommendations from the aforementioned
areas. Case histories are intended to be limited to a specific
failure or other engineering problem and will not address
broader topics in failure analysis and prevention. Case
histories may be adapted from larger, more comprehensive
investigations.
Though a strict content format will
not be adopted, the recommended
outline is as follows.
1. Abstract
2. Keywords
3. Scope of the Problem, including Background
Information
4. Analytical Techniques Performed
5. Data Evaluation/Synthesis of Results
6. Conclusions/Findings
7. Recommendations
8. References
Because case histories are intended to be more concise
communications than full journal articles, the suggested
manuscript length is 2-5 printed pages, including tables
and figures.
Case histories submissions should be submitted
electronically through http://mc.manuscriptcentral.
com/jfap. Author instructions are found through the
“Instructions & Forms” link in the upper right corner of
all pages of the Manuscript Central site and may also be
reached through the journal’s home page, www.
asminternational.org, or in the back of each issue of the
journal.

10 Volume 5(2) April 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention