AIAG - VDA, 2019 Latest Version: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Fmea)

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
( FMEA )
AIAG – VDA, 2019

Latest version
Objective of this initiative :
❑ To help the FMEA

practitioners to follow right
ranking methods, while
performing the FMEAs
❑ For free circulation only

Design FMEA
1
Sri Padhmam consultancy & Training support@sripadhmam.com + 91 99621 17222 www.sripadhmam.com For free circulation intended to help the FMEA practitioners
Design FMEA FMEA Ranking tables
Severity [S]
Occurrence [O]
Detection [D]
✓ These SOD ranking tables are aligned to the Version 2, 2nd June 2020
✓ All who have qualified by us on the latest version – may take a note of these tables to
implement
✓ Best wishes
2
Design FMEA : Severity Table ( AIAG – VDA 1st Edition )
( Reference : Pg 62 FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition *)
Corporate or
SEV Effect Severity criteria product Line
Examples
Affects safe operation of the vehicle and/or other

10 vehicles, the health of driver or passenger(s) or
road users or pedestrians
Very high
9 Non-compliance with regulations

The table
may be
augmented
Loss of primary vehicle function necessary for normal to include
8
driving during expected service life product
specific
High
examples.
Degradation of primary vehicle function necessary for
7
normal driving during expected service life
6 Loss of Secondary vehicle function
5 Moderate Degradation of secondary vehicle function
Very objectionable appearance, sound, vibration,

4
harshness, or haptics
Moderately objectionable appearance, sound, vibration,

3
Low
Slightly objectionable appearance, sound, vibration,
2
1 Very low No discernible effect
* Note : This table has been aligned to Errata Version 2, June 2020 3
Design FMEA : Occurrence Table ( (AIAG – VDA 1 st Edition )
Reference : Pg 64 & 65 FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1 st edition * )
Corporate or
Prediction of Failure
OCC Occurrence criteria - DFMEA product Line
cause occurring
Examples
Standards do not exist and best
First application of new technology anywhere
practices have not yet been
without operating experience and/or under
10 Extremely high determined. Prevention controls not
controlled operating conditions. No product
able to predict the field performance
verification and / or validation experience
or do not exist
First use of design with technical innovations or

Prevention controls not targeted to
materials within the company. New application or
9 identify performance to specific
change in duty cycle / operating conditions. No
requirements.
product verification and / or validation experience
Very high
First use of design with technical innovations or Few existing standards and best
materials on a new application. New application or practices, not directly applicable for
8
change in duty cycle / operating conditions. No this design. Prevention controls not
product verification and / or validation experience. reliable indicator of field performance.
Standards, best practices and design
New design based on similar technology and
rules apply to the baseline design, but
materials; new application or change in duty cycle /
7 not the innovations. Prevention
operating conditions. No product verification and /
controls provide limited indication of The table
or validation experience.
performance.
High may be
Standards and design rules exist but
Similar to previous designs, using existing augmented
are insufficient to ensure that the
technology and materials. Similar application, with
6 failure cause will not occur. to include
changes in duty cycle or operating conditions.
Prevention controls provide some
Previous testing or field experience. product
ability to prevent a failure cause.
Design addresses lessons learned specific
from previous designs. Best practices examples.
Detail changes to previous design, using proven
re-evaluated for this design, but have
technology and materials. Similar application, duty
not yet been proven. Prevention
5 cycle or operating conditions. Previous testing or
controls capable of finding
field experience, or new design with some test
deficiencies in the product related to
experience related to the failure.
the failure cause & provide some
Moderate indication of performance .
Predecessor design and changes for
new design conform to best practices,
Almost identical design with short – term field
standards and specifications.
exposure. Similar application, with minor change in
4 Prevention controls capable of finding
duty cycle or operating conditions. Previous testing
or field experience.
the failure cause & indicate likely
design conformance.
Design expected to conform to
standards and best practices,
Detail changes to known design (same application,
considering lessons learned from
with minor change in duty cycle or operating
previous designs. Prevention controls
3 Low conditions) and testing or field experience under
capable of finding deficiencies in the
comparable operating conditions, or new design
product related to the failure cause &
with successfully completed test procedure.
predict conformance of production
design.
Design expected to conform to
standards and best practices,
considering lessons learned from
Almost identical mature design with long term field
previous designs, with significant
exposure. Same application, with comparable duty
2 Very low margin of confidence. Prevention
cycle and operating conditions. Testing or field
controls capable of finding
experience under comparable operating conditions.
the failure cause & indicate
confidence in design conformance.
Failure eliminated through prevention control &

1 Extremely low
failure cause is not possible by design.
* Note : Occurrence can drop based on product validation activities

* Note : This table has been aligned to Errata Version 2, June 2020
• May also use the alternative table from page # 188 & 189, which has numeric also as incidents per 1000 items / vehicles
Sri Padhmam consultancy & Training support@sripadhmam.com + 91 99621 17222 www.sripadhmam.com For free circulation intended to help the FMEA practitioners 4
Design FMEA : Detection Table ( AIAG – VDA 1st Edition )
( Reference : Pg 67 FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition * )
Corporate or
Ability to Opportunity for
DET Detection method maturity product Line
Detect detection
Examples
Test method not

10 Test procedure yet to be developed.
defined.
Very low
Test method not designed specifically to Pass-fail, test-to-fail,
9
detect the failure mode or cause degradation testing
Pass-fail, test-to-fail, The table

8 New test method; not proven.
degradation testing may be
augmented
Low to include
product
7 Pass-fail testing specific
examples.
New test method; not proven; planned

timing is sufficient to modify production
6 Test-to-failure
tools before release for production. *
Moderate
5 Degradation testing
4 Pass-fail testing
Proven test method for verification of

functionality or validation of performance,
3 High quality, reliability and durability; Planned Test-to-failure
timing is sufficient to modify production
tools, before release for production.
2 Degradation testing
Prior testing confirmed that failure mode or cause cannot occur, or

1 Very high detection methods proven to always detect the failure mode or
failure cause.
*Note : This table has been aligned to Errata Version 2, June 2020
5
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
( FMEA )
AIAG – VDA, 2019

Latest version
Objective of this initiative :
❑ To help the FMEA

practitioners to follow right
ranking methods, while
performing the FMEAs
❑ For free circulation only

Process FMEA
1
Process FMEA FMEA Ranking tables
Severity [S]
Occurrence [O]
Detection [D]
✓ These SOD ranking tables are aligned to the Version 2, 2nd June 2020
✓ All who have qualified by us on the latest version – may take a note of these tables to
implement
✓ Best wishes
2
Process FMEA : SEVERITY ( S ) Table
( Reference : Pg 108 & 109 of FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition * )
Process General Evaluation criteria severity ( S )
Blank until filled in

Potential Failure Effects rated according to the criteria below.
by user
Corporate or
Effect
Impact to Ship- to plant Impact to End User

S Impact to your plant product Line
( When Known ) ( When Known )
examples
Failure may result in an acute Failure may result in an acute Affects safe operation of the
health and/or safety risk for health and/or safety risk for vehicle and/or other vehicles, the
10
the manufacturing or assembly the manufacturing or assembly health of driver or passenger(s) or
High
worker worker road users or pedestrians.
Failure may result in in-plant Failure may result in in-plant

9 Noncompliance with regulations
regulatory noncompliance regulatory noncompliance
Line shutdown greater than full
production shift; stop
100% of production run
shipment possible; field repair
affected may have to be
or replacement required
scrapped.
( Assembly to End user ) other
Failure may result in in-plant Loss of primary vehicle function
than for regulatory non
8 regulatory noncompliance or necessary for normal driving
compliance. Failure may result
may have a chronic health during expected service life.
Moderately high
in in-plant regulatory
and/or safety risk for the
noncompliance or may have a
manufacturing or assembly
chronic health and/or safety
worker
risk for the manufacturing or
assembly worker
Line shutdown from 1 hour up
Product may have to be sorted to full production shift; stop
Degradation of primary vehicle
and a portion ( less than 100% ) shipment possible; field repair
function necessary for normal
7 scrapped; deviation from or replacement required (
driving during expected service
primary process; decreased line Assembly to End user ) other
life.
speed or added manpower than for regulatory
noncompliance.
100% of production run may
Loss of secondary vehicle
6 have to be reworked off line Line shutdown up to one hour
function.
and accepted.
Less than 100% of product
Moderately low
A portion of the production run affected; strong possibility for

Degradation of secondary
5 may have to be reworked off additional defective product;
vehicle function.
line and accepted sort required; no line
shutdown.
Defective product triggers

100% of the production run Very objectionable appearance,
significant reaction plan;
4 may have to be reworked in – sound, vibration, harshness, or
Additional defective products
station before it is processed haptics
not likely; Sort not required.
Defective product triggers

A portion of the production run Moderately objectionable
minor reaction plan. Additional
3 may have to be reworked in – appearance, sound, vibration,
defective products not likely;
station before it is processed harshness, or haptics.
Sort not required.
Low
Defective product triggers no

reaction plan; additional Slightly objectionable
Slight inconvenience to
2 defective products not likely; appearance, sound, vibration,
process, operation, or operator.
sort not required; requires harshness, or haptics.
feedback to supplier
No discernible effect or no
Very
low
1 No discernible effect. No discernible effect.

effect
3
Type - 1 / 3
Process FMEA : OCCURRENCE ( O ) Table
( Reference : Pg 197 of FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition * )
Occurrence Potential ( O ) for the process
Potential Failure Causes rated according to the criteria below. Consider Prevention Controls when determining the best
Blank until
Occurrence estimate. Occurrence is a predictive qualitative rating made at the time of evaluation and may not reflect the
filled in by
actual occurrence. The occurrence rating number is a relative rating within the scope of the FMEA ( process being evaluated ).
user
For prevention controls with multiple Occurrence Ratings, use the rating that best reflects the robustness of the control.
Corporate or
Prediction of failure cause
O Type of control Prevention Controls product Line
occurring
Examples
10 Extremely high None No prevention controls
9
Prevention controls will have little effect
Very high Behavioural
in preventing failure cause
8
High
Prevention controls somewhat effective in
6 preventing failure cause
Behavioural or Technical
Moderate
Prevention controls are effective in
preventing failure cause
4
3 Low
Best practices; Behavioural or Prevention controls are highly effective in

Technical preventing failure cause
2 Very low
Prevention controls are extremely

effective in preventing failure cause from
occurring due to design ( e.g. Part
geometry ) or process ( e.g. fixture or
1 Extremely low Technical
tooling design ). Intent of prevention
controls – Failure mode cannot be
physically produced due to the failure
cause.
4
Process FMEA : Alternative OCCURRENCE ( O ) Table Type - 2 / 3
( Reference : Pg 198 of FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition *)
PFMEA Occurrence ( O ) with Incidents per Thousand Values
Occurrence Potential (O) for the Process
Occurrence estimate. Occurrence is a predictive qualitative rating made at the time of evaluation and may not reflect the Blank until filled
actual occurrence. The occurrence rating number is a relative rating within the scope of the FMEA ( process being evaluated in by user
). For prevention controls with multiple Occurrence Ratings, use the rating that best reflects the robustness of the control.
Corporate or
O Incidents per 1000 items / vehicles Type of control Prevention Controls product Line
Examples
10 ≥ 100 per thousand >/= 1 in 10 None No prevention controls
9 50 per thousand 1 in 20
Prevention controls will have little effect
Behavioural
8 20 per thousand in 1 in 50
7 10 per thousand in 1 in 100
Prevention controls somewhat effective

6 2 per thousand 1 in 500

5 .5 per thousand 1 in 2000

4 .1 per thousand 1 in 10,000
3 .01 per thousand 1 in 100,000
Best practices; Behavioural or Prevention controls are highly effective

Technical in preventing failure cause
2 < .001 per thousand 1 in 1,000,000

effective in preventing failure cause
from occurring due to design ( e.g. Part
Failure is eliminated through geometry ) or process ( e.g. fixture or
1 Technical
prevention control tooling design ). Intent of prevention
cause.
5
Process FMEA : Alternative OCCURRENCE ( O ) Table Type - 3 / 3
( Reference : Pg 199 of FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition * )
PFMEA Occurrence ( O ) with Time Based Failure Prediction Values
Occurrence Potential (O) for the Process
Occurrence estimate. Occurrence is a predictive qualitative rating made at the time of evaluation and may not reflect the
Blank until filled in
actual occurrence. The occurrence rating number is a relative rating within the scope of the FMEA ( process being
by user
evaluated ). For prevention controls with multiple Occurrence Ratings, use the rating that best reflects the robustness of
the control.
Corporate or
O Time based failure cause prediction Type of control Prevention Controls product Line
Examples
10 Every time None No prevention controls
9 Almost every time

Prevention controls will have little
Behavioural
effect in preventing failure cause
8 More than once per shift
7 More than once per day
Prevention controls somewhat effective

6 More than once per week
5 More than once per month

4 More than once per year
3 Once per year
Best practices; Behavioural or Prevention controls are highly effective

Technical in preventing failure cause
2 Less than once per year

effective in preventing failure cause
from occurring due to design ( e.g. Part
geometry ) or process ( e.g. fixture or
1 Never Technical
tooling design ). Intent of prevention
cause.
6
Process FMEA : DETECTION (D) Table
( Reference : Pg 200 & 201 of FMEA ( AIAG – VDA ) Handbook 1st edition * )
Detection Potential ( D ) for the Validation of the Process Design
Blank until
Detection Controls rated according to the Detection Method Maturity and Opportunity for Detection
filled in by user
Corporate or
D Ability to Detect Detection method maturity Opportunity for detection Product Line
Examples
No testing or inspection method

The failure mode will not or cannot be detected
10 has been established or is known
Very low
It is unlikely that the testing or
The failure mode is not easily detected through
inspection method will detect the
9 random or sporadic audits
failure mode
Human inspection ( Visual., tactile, audible ), or

Test or inspection method has use of manual gauging ( attribute or variable )
8
not been proven to be effective that should detect the failure mode or failure
and reliable ( e.g. plant has little or cause.
Low no experience with method, gauge Machine-based detection ( automated or semi-
R & R results marginal on automated with notification by light, buzzer, etc ),
7 comparable process or this Or use of inspection equipment such as a
application, etc ) coordinate measuring machine that should detect
failure mode or failure cause.
Human inspection ( Visual, tactile, audible ), or use
of manual gauging ( attribute or variable ) that
6
Test or inspection method has will detect the failure mode or failure cause
been proven to be effective and ( including product sample checks ).
reliable ( e.g method; gauge R & R Machine-based detection ( semi-automated with
Moderate
results are acceptable on notification by light, buzzer, etc ), or use of
comparable process or this inspection equipment such as a coordinate
5 application etc., ) measuring machine that will detect failure mode
or failure cause ( including product sample
checks )
Machine-based automated detection method that
will detect the failure mode downstream, prevent
further processing or system will identify the
product as discrepant and allow it to
4 automatically move forward in the process until
the designated reject unload area. Discrepant
System has been proven to be product will be controlled by a robust system that
effective and reliable ( e.g plant has will prevent outflow of the product from the
experience with method on facility.
identical process or this application Machine-based automated detection method that
), gauge R & R results are will detect the failure mode in-station, prevent
3 High acceptable , etc further processing or system will identify the
product as discrepant and allow it to
automatically move forward in the process until
the designated reject unload area. Discrepant
product will be controlled by a robust system that
will prevent outflow of the product from the
facility
2
Detection method has been proven
Machine-based detection method that will detect
to be effective and reliable ( e.g
the cause and prevent the failure mode (
plant has experience with method,
discrepant part ) from being produced
error-proofing verifications, etc., )
Failure mode cannot be physically produced as-designed or processed, or detection

1 Very high
methods proven to always detect the failure mode or failure cause.
7

AIAG - VDA, 2019 Latest Version: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Fmea)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAG - VDA, 2019 Latest Version: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Fmea)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

AIAG – VDA, 2019

Objective of this initiative :

❑ To help the FMEA

❑ For free circulation only

Affects safe operation of the vehicle and/or other

9 Non-compliance with regulations

6 Loss of Secondary vehicle function

5 Moderate Degradation of secondary vehicle function

Very objectionable appearance, sound, vibration,

Moderately objectionable appearance, sound, vibration,

1 Very low No discernible effect

First use of design with technical innovations or

Failure eliminated through prevention control &

* Note : Occurrence can drop based on product validation activities

Test method not

Pass-fail, test-to-fail, The table

New test method; not proven; planned

Proven test method for verification of

Prior testing confirmed that failure mode or cause cannot occur, or

AIAG – VDA, 2019

Objective of this initiative :

❑ To help the FMEA

❑ For free circulation only

Process General Evaluation criteria severity ( S )

Blank until filled in

Impact to Ship- to plant Impact to End User

worker worker road users or pedestrians.

Failure may result in in-plant Failure may result in in-plant

A portion of the production run affected; strong possibility for

Defective product triggers

Defective product triggers

Defective product triggers no

1 No discernible effect. No discernible effect.

Occurrence Potential ( O ) for the process

10 Extremely high None No prevention controls

Best practices; Behavioural or Prevention controls are highly effective in

Prevention controls are extremely

Occurrence Potential (O) for the Process

10 ≥ 100 per thousand >/= 1 in 10 None No prevention controls

7 10 per thousand in 1 in 100

Prevention controls somewhat effective

6 2 per thousand 1 in 500

5 .5 per thousand 1 in 2000

3 .01 per thousand 1 in 100,000

Best practices; Behavioural or Prevention controls are highly effective

2 < .001 per thousand 1 in 1,000,000

Prevention controls are extremely

Occurrence Potential (O) for the Process

10 Every time None No prevention controls

9 Almost every time

7 More than once per day

Prevention controls somewhat effective

6 More than once per week

5 More than once per month

3 Once per year

Best practices; Behavioural or Prevention controls are highly effective

Prevention controls are extremely

Detection Potential ( D ) for the Validation of the Process Design

No testing or inspection method

Human inspection ( Visual., tactile, audible ), or

Failure mode cannot be physically produced as-designed or processed, or detection