MAPAN-Journal of Metrology Society of India (June 2023) 38(2):547–556

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-022-00619-5

CASE REPORT

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of PCB for Quality Control Process
R. Gupta*
Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058, India

Received: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 23 December 2022 / Published online: 12 January 2023

Ó Metrology Society of India 2023

Abstract: The aim of this study is to highlight the key elements for optimizing printed circuit board (PCB) fabrication
productivity through improving manufacturing process efficiency. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a technique
used to reduce the percentage of finished goods that are found to be defective during the manufacturing process and final
inspection, resulting in low rejection ratios and optimized PCB design. This paper presents all the quality steps to achieve
high efficiency in PCB design. The study is done in electronics manufacturing industry in which its production begins from
receiving PCBs, raw material then bringing them into punching and assembly processes through surface mount machines
(SMT). To find defective items and lower the possibility of defective final products, or IPQC (in-process quality control), is
used. The average of customer manufacturers lot reject rate (%LRR of CMs) has been improved by using improved quality
control. For assessing the risk connected to probable issues discovered during a failure mode and effects analysis, the risk
priority number (RPN) methodology technique is applied. The FMEA RPN assists the responsible team or individual in
prioritizing risks and choosing the appropriate remedial measures. Lot reject rate (LRR) improved by FMEA is from 5500
parts per million (PPM) to 900 parts per million (PPM), and faults have decreased by 0.76% as a result of improved quality
control.

Keywords: Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA); PCB; Risk priority number

1. Introduction process design. A possible process failure modes are its

The globalization of markets and industrial production
processes was significantly impacted by Covid-19. Lean
manufacturing strategies are being used by more firms in
an effort to pursue the elimination of waste/defects through
continuous improvement, enhance product quality, and
boost supply chain competitiveness. This trend is driven by
rising consumer demands for product quality, affordability,
and flexibility. The paper discusses the quality control in
electronics manufacturing industry in which its production
begins from receiving PCBs and then bringing them into
punching and assembly processes through surface mount
machines (SMT). Surface mount machines are also called
pick-and-place machines or smt component placement
systems. In practical circuit applications, a printed circuit
board (PCB) is a crucial component, and its failure can lead
to large financial losses as well as safety issues.
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is an orga-
nized method for identifying potential flaws in a product or
methods. Effects are the ways in which these mistakes can
cause waste, flaws, or negative results for the client. To
identify, prioritize, and restrict certain failure modes, fail-
ure mode and effects analysis is used. FMEA improves the
quality control process of flexible printed circuit boards. A
root cause analysis is necessary to prevent the failures from
reoccurring. The terms ‘‘failure modes,’’ ‘‘failure mecha-
nisms,’’ and ‘‘root causes’’ are all used interchangeably. An
open circuit (failure mode) due to conductor corrosion
(failure mechanism) produced by an inadequate protective
coating is an example (root cause). While identifying
failure modes is simple since they can be seen or measured,
identifying failure mechanisms and core causes is more
difficult [1]. The FMEA RPN (risk priority number) mea-
sures the risk priority level of a failure mode in an FMEA
analysis numerically. The FMEA RPN assists the respon-
sible team or individual in prioritizing risks and choosing
the appropriate remedial measures. Severity (Sev.),
occurrence (Occ.), and detection (Det.) are the indexes, and
RPN is calculated as:

*Corresponding author, E-mail: richagupta@msit.in

123
548 R. Gupta

Table 1 Severity criteria

Severity criteria
Score Rank Comments

1 None No effect
2 Very minor Defect noticed by discriminating customer. Performance nominal
3 Minor Defect noticed by average customer. Performance nominal
4 Very low Defect noticed by most customer. Performance nominal
5 Low Device operable, but convenience options operate at reduced performance level. Customer experiences some
dissatisfaction
6 Moderate Device operable, but convenience options inoperable. Customer experiences some dissatisfaction
7 High Device operable, but at reduced performance levels. Customer dissatisfied
8 Very high Device inoperable with loss of primary functions
9 Hazardous (with A potential failure mode makes operations unsafe to operator and/or involves non-compliance with
warning) government regulations with warning
10 Hazardous (without A potential failure mode makes operations unsafe to operator
warning)

Table 2 Occurrence criteria

Occurrence criteria
Score Rank Comments Failure rate

1 Remote Failure is unlikely \ 1 in 1,000,000

2 Very low Relatively few failures 1 in 150,000
3 Low Not uncommon 1 in 15,000
4 Moderate Occasional failures 1 in 2000
5 Likely Frequent failures 1 in 100
6 High Failure is typical 1 in 25
7 Very high Repeated failures 1 in 10
8 Severe Failure is almost inevitable 1 in 5
9 Extreme Failure is normal [ 1 in 2

Risk Priority Number ðRPNÞ ¼ Severity  Occurrence Table 3 RPN range

 Detection
RPN level Range
Severity, occurrence, and detection indexes are derived
None 0
from the FMEA. Severity measures the failure’s
Low 8–40
prospective effects in terms of their seriousness.
Medium 80–240
Occurrence evaluates how likely it is that the failure will
High 320–1000
take place and detection and assesses the possibility that
the issue will be found and fixed before it affects the end
user or client. A high severity ranking indicates severe risk. The paper is organized as follows; Sect. 2 discusses
Table 1 presents the effect analysis of severity on the basis relevant literature of FMEA. In Sect. 3 the entire process of
of severity score. Score analysis of occurrence criteria is PCB design and fabrication is discussed. Section 4 dis-
presented in Table 2. The criteria in Tables 1, 2, and 3 have cusses risk assessment methodology. The entire case study
been prepared from the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of electronics company using the FMEA method is pre-
Reference Manual by the Automotive Industry Action sented in section Sect. 5. Improved quality control process
Group (AIAG) [1]. is discussed in Sect. 6.
RPN range is described in Table 3. Typically, the higher
RPN values for the identified failure mode will be given
priority for additional corrective actions [2, 3].

123
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of PCB for Quality Control Process
Fig. 1 FMEA process PCB assembly
2. Literature Survey
FMEA is a methodical procedure for detecting every
potential flaw in a design, a production or assembly pro-
cess, a product, or service. It investigates how failures
could happen [4]. The technique can be used to highlight
549
issues with an ongoing procedure or potential dangers in a
product design that is still being developed. The technique
has some flaws and is based on a military procedure of the
US Department of Defense [5]. It has been heavily utilized
by numerous National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration (NASA) space programs [6]. FMEA is now widely
123
550 R. Gupta

Table 4 Risk assessment matrix

Likelihood Impact/consequence
Low (1) Medium (2) High (4)

Unlikely (1) 1 Low 2 Low 4 Medium

Possible (2) 2 Low 4 Medium 8 High
Likely (3) 3 Low 6 Medium 12 Extremely high
Certain (5) 5 Medium 10 High 20 Extremely high

Table 5 Risk analysis and its impact

Likelihood

Unlikely Very unlikely to occur—\ 5% chance of occurrence in any one year

(1)
Possible Likely to occur in the medium term—10–25% chance of occurrence in any one year
(2)
Likely (3) Likely to occur in the shorter term—25–50% chance of occurrence in any one year
Certain (5) Almost certain to occur, could happen now—50–100% chance of occurrence in any one year
Impact/consequence
Low (1) Minor delay, inconvenience or impact. Very short-term effect. Little damage to business, insignificant financial cost or reputational
damage
Medium Significant impact on customer service, operational function or finance. Medium-term effect with possible reputational damage
(2)
High (3) Major impact on customer service, operational function or regulatory compliance. Reputational damage, mid- to long-term effect

Table 6 Risk score analysis
Risk Action to be taken
score
1–2-3 Note and monitor risk. Management action possibly not
required
4–5-6 Management action required. Monitor risk
8–10 Significant and urgent management action required and
regular reporting
12–20 Extensive and ongoing management action and reporting
required
used in manufacturing-related businesses. It is one of the
most effective methods for identifying the absence of a
design or manufacturing process for a product. FMEA is
now widely used in manufacturing-related businesses. It is
one of the most effective strategies for identifying a pro-
duct design or production process that does not exist. The
article in [7] discusses the DFMEA during the development
of automotive CMOS image sensors’ feasibility phase. The
stock production process is assessed using a comprehensive
PFMEA [8]. There are several studies; hence, there are
numerous literature review papers in the literature. A wide
range of research was used to review FMEA proce-
dures [9]. An analysis of the state of the art based on 220
articles and 100 patent information is summarized in [10].
An insights into the future of FMEA are represented with a
rigorous research study in [11]. The effective integration of
other approaches, such as the problem-solving methodol-
ogy, quality function deployment, and root cause analysis,
is covered in [12]. The risk priority number (RPN), which
is the product of the severity, probability, and detectability
values for each risk, should then be computed [13]. The
two fundamental ideas of uncertainty in risk analysis—
objective and subjective—are described in [14]. Subjec-
tivity and objectivity are founded on differences in the
physical world and, respectively, ignorance. Some char-
acteristics, including safety functions, variable qualities,
and experimental data, can have objective uncertainty
when risk factors are observed and documented across
samples [15]. In addition, subjectivity uncertainty relates to
ambiguities, vagueness, or imprecision regarding the
quality of FMEA. This is particularly true in accident-re-
lated situations where subjectivity manifests itself in the
identification of FMs and the estimation of risk factors
during the FMEA procedure. Here, we have considered
both subjective causes like receipt, inspection, and issuance
of raw materials and objective factors like placement of
components, automation process, PCB cleaning, etc. All
these factors contribute to RPN calculation with high
accuracy and low uncertainty.

123
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of PCB for Quality Control Process 551

Table 7 Risk and hazard identification

S. Operation Risk description Impact of risk Likelihood Consequence Risk
no process (occurrence) (severity) category
In which (certain/likely/possible/ (low/ (low/
process it unlikely) medium/ medium/
can occur high) high/
extremely
high)

1 Production Wrong loading plan Not able to achieve production targets/ 1 4 4

planning Equipment B/D delivery commitments made to 1 2 2
& customers, customer dis- satisfaction,
Material shortage 1 2 2
execution loss of new orders
Untrained operator 2 4 8
Manpower shortage 2 4 8
Inventory build-up 1 2 2
Instrument/gauges are 1 4 4
not available as per
requirement
Use of PPE Likelihood of injury to an employee 2 2 4
2 Process In-house rejection more Not able to achieve production targets/ 2 4 8
rejection, than target delivery commitments made to
rework & In-house re- work more customers, loss of profit 2 4 8
scrap than target
control
Failure in checking & 2 2 4
verifying scrap for
the daily
manufacturing
process

Fig. 2 a Store room for raw

material, b SMT machine,
c automatic component
insertion using SMT machine,
d PCB touch-up and visual
inspection

3. Process Flow of an incident. A risk assessment matrix is presented in

The entire process of PCB fabrication is represented in the
form of flow diagram in Fig. 1. The FMEA analysis is done
as per considering all steps taken to manufacture the PCB.
Table 4. In Table 5 the potential severity of each threat
along with its impact/consequence analysis is discussed.
Risk score analysis is done in Table 6. Risk identification,
its impact, its likelihood of occurrence along with its
consequence and risk category are discussed in Table 7.

4. Risk Assessment Methodology

Risk assessment entails assessing risks while taking into
account known vulnerabilities to a variety of potential
threats or hazards, general or specific threat/hazard infor-
mation, and the potential direct and indirect repercussions
5. Case Study
For problem analysis it is required to observe the entire
process of PCB fabrication. The study was done in MS
ELECTROVISION PVT LTD Electronic Design &

123
552 R. Gupta

Table 8 FMEA for PCB Fabrication

Process step Required function Potential failure mode Sev Occ Det RPN Consequences of each potential fault

Receipt of raw Component should be in Loose parts, not in standard 2 2 4 16 Customer effect: nil
material standard packaging packaging Mfr/assly effect: more/less qty can
be recd
No physical damage of Open boxes, damaged 2 2 4 16 Customer effect: nil
boxes boxes during Mfr/assly effect: parts can damage
transportation
Proper unloading of parts Boxes fall down during 2 2 5 20 Customer effect: nil
unloading Mfr/assly effect: parts can damage
Receipt Received quantity as per Less/more quantity 3 2 5 30 Customer effect: nil
inspection of invoice received Mfr/assly effect: loss to company
raw material
Quality of parts as per NG parts recd 4 2 5 40 Customer Effect: Nil
acceptance criteria Mfr/Assly Effect: Line can stop due
to shortage of parts
Material should not be NG parts recd 4 3 5 60 Customer effect: nil
expiry, with in shelf life Mfr/assly effect: line can stop due to
shortage of parts
Storage of Components at designated Mixing of components 2 2 4 16 Customer Effect: Nil
incoming place Mfr/Assly Effect: Line stoppage due
material to wrong issue of material
Components should be OK Damaged during storage 2 2 6 24 Customer effect: nil
as per physical Mfr/assly effect: slight
appearance inconvenience to process,
operation or operator
Stored beyond shelf life 2 2 4 16 Customer Effect: Nil
Mfr/Assly Effect: slight
inconvenience to process,
operation or operator
Temp: 28°–38°C Storage temperature & RH 5 2 5 50 Customer effect: nil
RH: 30–60% not within specified Mfr/assly effect: a portion of
limits production run may have to
rework
Issue of raw material issue as per BOM Material issued not correct 5 2 4 40 Customer effect: nil
material (bill of material) Mfr/assly effect: delay in production/
wrong production
Quantity of material as Shortage of material 2 2 4 16 Customer effect: nil
required Mfr/assly effect: line stoppage

Manufacturing Services company providing a packaged
solution for Electronic Design Services, PCB Assemblies
& Box Build Products for its valuable customers at IMT
Manesar, Haryana. Using the FMEA method, the produc-
tion crew and the researcher jointly assessed the risks of
each process’ failure modes. The various modes of opera-
tion associated in PCB manufacturing are Receipt Inspec-
tion of Raw Material, Storage of Material, Issue of Raw
Material, Forming of Component, Placement SMD com-
ponent, Automatic Insertion, Manual Insertion, Visual
Inspection, Wave Soldering, Lead Cutting, Touch-up,
Visual Inspection SMD, Visual Inspection Component,
Final Inspection, Cleaning of PCB, Conformal Coating,
Controller Pre-Assembly, Final Testing, Gluing/Sticker
pasting, Packing, OQC, and Dispatch. Figure 2a shows
how raw material is stored room. In SMT machine, auto-
matic component insertion using PCB programming soft-
ware is done as demonstrated in Fig. 2c.
PCB touch-up and visual inspection is done manually as
shown in Fig. 2d.
Table 7 lists all the design processes for PCB fabrication
that have been identified and evaluated for FMEA. Each
process receives an RPN to carry out quality improvement
measures. Table 8 provides scores for the severity, occur-
rence, and detection of failure modes for the procurement,
storage of raw materials, and entire process required for
PCB design. The value of Severity to any process is
assigned based on the severity of the process on a scale of 1

123
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of PCB for Quality Control Process 553

Table 9 FMEA for SMD components

Process step Potential Failure Mode Sev Occ Det RPN Consequences of each potential
fault

Placement of Solder paste Solder paste not homogeneous sly mixed 5 2 5 50 Customer effect: nil
SMD mixing Mfr/assly effect: less solder on pad
components requiring partial rework
PCB baking Copper oxidation/rus ting. Carbon on pad 5 3 5 75 Customer effect: nil
Mfr/assly effect: parts have to scrap
Loading of PCB loaded in upside down or wrong 2 2 4 16 Customer effect: nil
PCB direction Mfr/assly effect: slight
inconvenience to process,
operation or operator
Placement of Solder paste Insufficient solder, bridging, excess solder, 6 2 5 60 Customer effect: function failure
SMD printing missing, uneven print Mfr/assly: partial rework
components
Components Extra Component 6 2 4 48 Customer effect: functional failure
mounting Missing component 3 72 Mfr/assly effect: a portion of
Wrong value component 2 48 production run may have to
rework offline
Reflow Less solder, excess solder, tombstoning on 6 3 4 72 Customer effect: functional failure
solderin g wetting, miss aligned, bill board, solder Mfr/assly: partial rework
ball
Automat ic Defect passed on to next stage 6 2 5 60 Customer effect: functional failures
optical 2 5 60 Mfg/assy: partial rework off line
inspecti on

Table 10 FMEA for SMD components

Process step Potential Failure Mode Sev Occ Det RPN Potential effect of failure

Automatic insertion Extra component 5 2 4 40 Customer effect: functional failure

Missing component 3 60 Mfr/assly effect: a portion of production run may have
Wrong value component 2 40 to rework offline
Manual insertion Extra component 5 2 4 40 Customer effect: functional failure
Missing component 3 60 Mfr/assly effect: a portion of production run may have
to rework offline
Visual inspection Defect passed on to next stage 6 2 5 60 Customer effect: functional failures
Mfg/assy: partial rework off line
Wave soldering Less solder, Excess solder, tombstoning, dry soldering, miss 6 3 4 72 Customer effect: functional failure
aligned,, solder ball Mfr/assly: partial rework
Touch—UP Pad damage 3 2 3 18 Customer effect: functional failure
Mfr/assly: partial rework, circuit fail
Visual inspection (SMD) Defect passed on to next stage 6 3 4 72 Customer Effect: Functional failures
Mfg/assy: partial rework off line
Visual inspection Defect passed on to next stage 6 3 4 72 Customer effect: functional failures
(component) Mfg/assy: partial rework off line
Final inspection Defect passed on to next stage 6 3 4 72 Customer effect: functional failures
Mfg/assy: partial rework off line
ICT testing Defect passed on to next stage 6 2 5 60 Customer effect: functional failures
2 5 60 Mfg/assy: partial rework off line
Final testing High/Low Current 6 2 6 72 1. Functional failures
Misbehaving of peripherals 2 7 84 2. A portion of production run have to be scrapped
Visual inspection/aesthetic Defect passed on Customer, Customer Dissatisfaction 6 2 5 60 Customer effect: functional failures
checking
OQC Coating issue, Sticker issue, packaging issue, aesthetics 6 2 5 60 1. End user: customer dissatisfaction
2. Mfr/assly: totally rework
Dispatch Delivery not as per schedule 4 2 8 64 1. End User: customer line stop
4 1 10 40 2. Mfr/assly: no effect

123
554 R. Gupta

Fig. 3 a Visual inspection done normal magnifier lens, b zoom machine

Fig. 4 a Manual testing jig, b FCT jig—software controlled for decision making

to 10, after considering the possible impact of the failure quality goals, and raised RPN. A joint inspection con-
and criticality of the risk identified in the process. Cus- ducted by the company resulted in cutting and pin shorting
tomer discontent due to performance degradation is rep- caused by solder balls being caught in IC pins. A number of
resented by a severity rating of 4 to 6, whereas a severity initiatives have been done, including the implementation of
rating of 9 or 10 indicates that the process is so unsta-
Table 11 Testing defect—display PCB
ble that accidents may occur, endangering the safety of
personnel. The FMEA is created by those involved in the Month Total production Defect % Defect
process; they are fully aware of the type of problem that is
Nov–21 7512 72 0.96
most likely to appear there. The production data are used to
Dec–21 10,486 88 0.84
calculate the value of Occurrence and Detection. Tables 1,
Jan–22 9282 82 0.88
2, and 3 are referred for the same. Tables 9 and 10 detail
Feb–22 9674 94 0.97
the full procedure for producing surface-mounted (SMD)
Mar–22 3444 30 0.87
components in an SMT machine using RPN analysis.
Apr–22 17,284 22 0.13
Many processes are taken to create a PCB throughout
May–22 17,284 22 0.13
the PCB assembly process of a window air conditioner, and
Jun–22 3612 7 0.19
a final visual inspection is carried out to cross-check all of
the steps. Because of an operator error, this manual oper- Jul–22 10,072 18 0.18
ation results in a shorting between TQFP pins that is passed Aug–22 3696 6 0.16
during final testing, increasing the rejection ratio. A major Sep-22 6156 5 0.08
incident happened that had an influence on output, reduced

123
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of PCB for Quality Control Process 555

(a) 20000
18000
16000
14000

Total Producon
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Nov-21 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22
Month

Total Producon

(b)
1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
%Defects

0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%

Month

Fig. 5 a Trends of the data of the inspection process. b Trends of the defects of the inspection process

Table 12 Defect analysis

Total PCB produced before action 40,398 Total PCB produced after action 40,820
Defects observed 366 Defects observed 58
% of rejection 0.90599 % of rejection 0.14209
% Difference in defects observed after taking action 0.7639

zoom machine for testing as shown in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively, during the visual inspection stage. A sensible
decision like this leads to increased productivity and less
RPN.
6. Results and Discussion
Following improvements to the quality control approach
for PCB design, Table 11 shows manufacturing data and
testing defect of display PCB from November 2021 to
September 2022. Studying the different types of flaws, their
causes, and ways to prevent them are all things that FMEA
aids in. The conformal coating and pre-testing process now
has fewer flaws. Both pre-testing and coating were done
incorrectly by the operator. After a quality improvement
method, such as the zoom machine for testing and the FCT
jig—software controlled for decision making, the number
of defects tends to go down.
Trends of the data of the inspection process are shown in
Fig. 5a, b. The percentage difference in defects seen after
taking action is 0.76% as demonstrated in Table 12. FMEA
method is used for analyzing processes to estimate their
failure modes’ risk. The average customer manufacturers

123
556
lot reject rate has dropped from 5500 to 900 PPM, and
faults have decreased by 0.76% as a result of improved
quality control.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, it has been demonstrated how the improve-
ment in quality of PCB fabrication can be done by applying
FMEA. The various FMEA techniques are implemented on
manufacturing PCB to reduce defective products in a lot of
finished PCB products during the manufacturing process
and final inspection. The study was conducted in the
electronics manufacturing sector. Improved quality control
has resulted in a lower average customer manufacturer lot
rejection rate (%LRR of CMs). The risk priority number
(RPN) methodology technique is used to evaluate the risk
related to potential issues identified during a failure mode
and effects analysis. The FMEA RPN assists in ranking
risks and choosing the most effective corrective measures.
FMEA reduced the lot reject rate (LRR) from 5500 parts
per million (PPM) to 900 PPM, and as a result of better
quality control, the number of defected PCBs decreased by
0.76%.
Acknowledgements This study was done in MS ELECTROVISION
PVT LTD, Electronic Design & Manufacturing Services company,
providing a packaged solution for Electronic Design Services, PCB
Assemblies & Box Build Products for its valuable customers at IMT
Manesar, Haryana.
References
[1] AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook, 4th ed, (2019).
[2] Cher-Ming Tan, Hsiao-Hi Chen, Jing-Ping Wu, Vivek Sangwan,
Kun-Yen Tsai, and Wen- Chun Huang, Root cause analysis of a
printed circuit board (PCB) failure in a public transport com-
munication system, Applied Sciences, 12(2) (2022) 640.
[3] H.-C. Liu, L. Liu and N. Liu, Risk evaluation approaches in
failure mode and effects analysis: a literature review, Expert
Syst. Appl., 40 (2013) 828–838.
123
R. Gupta
[4] D.H. Stamatis, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from
Theory to Execution; Quality Press, (2003)
[5] A.S. Agarwala, Shortcomings in mil-std-1629A guidelines for
criticality analysis. In: Annual Proceedings on Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium; IEEE, (1990) pp. 494–496.
[6] Office of Manned Space Flight, Apollo program, Apollo Reli-
ability and Quality Assurance Office. (1966). Procedure for
Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA).
[7] S. Maddalena, A. Darmon and R. Diels, Automotive CMOS
image sensors. In Advanced Microsystems for Automotive
Applications; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, (2005) pp. 401–412.
[8] Y. Klochkov, A. Its and I. Vasilieva, Development of FMEA
method with the purpose of quality assessment of can stock
production. In Key Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publi-
cations Ltd, (2016) vol. 684, pp. 473–476.
[9] K.D. Sharma and S. Srivastava, Failure mode and effect analysis
(FMEA) implementation: a literature review, J. Adv. Res.
Aeronaut. Space Sci, 5 (2018) 1–17.
[10] C. Spreafico, D. Russo and C. Rizzi, A state-of-the-art review of
FMEA/FMECA including patents, Computer Science Review,
25 (2017) 19–28.
[11] J. Huang, J.X. You, H.C. Liu and M.S. Song, Failure mode and
effect analysis improvement: A systematic literature review and
future research agenda, Reliability Engineering & System
Safety, 106885 (2020).
[12] W.C. Ng, S.Y. Teh, H.C. Low, and P.C. Teoh, The integration of
FMEA with other problem solving tools: A review of
enhancement opportunities. In J Phys Conf Ser; (2017) vol. 890,
p. 012139.
[13] A.P. Puvanasvaran, N. Jamibollah, N. Norazlin and R. Adibah,
Poka-Yoke Integration into process FMEA, Australian Journal
of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8(7) (2014) 66–73.
[14] W. Song, X. Ming, Z. Wu and B. Zhu, A rough TOPSIS
approach for failure mode and effects analysis in uncertain
environments, Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
30(4) (2014) 473–486.
[15] M. Yazdi, Hybrid probabilistic risk assessment using fuzzy FTA
and fuzzy AHP in a process industry, J. Fail. Anal. Prev., 17
(2017) 756–764.
[16] A.S. Markowski, M.S. Mannan and A. Bigoszewska, Fuzzy
logic for process safety analysis, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 22
(2009) 695–702.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.