M

A
R
S
Mars Consultants
C
O
N Welcomes all suppliers to DTVS for
S training program on FMEA
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Failure
R
S A ‘Failure’ is that a component, assembly or system
which does not meet the requirements or function
in accordance with design intent.
C
O
N Failure Mode
S
U A ‘Failure Mode’ is the manner in which a component,
L assembly or system failure occurs.
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
What is FMEA?
A
R q Recognize and evaluate the potential failure of a
S product / process and its effects

C q Identify actions which could eliminate or reduce the

O chance of potential failure occurring document the
N process
S Why FMEA?
U
L q For a company policy where continuous improvement
T is emphasized for its product, process
A
N q FMEA is a living document
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Who should do FMEA?
A
R q Cross Functional Team Effort – with a leader
S
q Team of knowledgeable individuals
C
O q Team should include representatives of sub-
N contractors and/or customers
S When FMEA should be done?
U
L q New Design, New Technology, New Process
T
A q Modification to existing design / process
N
T q Use of existing process in new environment,
S location or application
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M Advantages of FMEA
A
R q “Before the event” rather than “after the fact”
S
q Avoids late change crisis
C
O q Reduces or eliminates chance of implementing
N corrective change
S
U q Excellent technique for preventive action
L
T q Interactive process which is never ending
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M Types of FMEA
A
R q System FMEA (Power transmission system)
S
q Design FMEA (Axle shaft)
C
O q Process FMEA (Heat treatment)
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M Potential – Process FMEA
A
R q Potential Means ‘Anticipated’
S
q Analytical technique
C q Summary of teams thought
O q Assesses the effect of potential failure on the
N customer/process variables
S
q Should be catalyst to stimulate the interchange of
U
ideas
L
T q Team approach
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M Approach to Process FMEA
A
R Customer requirement
S
Feasibility Study

C Identification of mfg. processes

O
N Preparing Process Flow Diagram
S Preliminary Listing of Special Characteristics
U
L Conducting PFMEA
T
A Tooling for Production
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M 2
Item: ____________________________________ 3
Process Responsibility: _________________________________ 1
FMEA Number: _________________________

A 5
Model: ___________________________________ Key Date: 6 Page: _____ of _____

R Core
8
Team: _____________________________________________________ 7 (Rev) _____________
FMEA Date: ________________ 4
Prepared by: ___________________________

Occurrence
22

Detection
Process Potential Potential Causes / Action Results

Severity
Potential Current Process Current Process Recom'ed Resp. & Target

Class

RPN
Function / Effect(s) of Mechanism(s) of
Failure Mode Control-Prevention Control- Detection Actions Completion Date
Reqmt. failure failure Actions
S O D RPN
taken

9 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21
13
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Id
A no.
Title Description
R
• FMEA Doc No.
S 1 FMEA NO.
• Used for tracking
Name and number of system/sub-
2 Item
C system/component for the particular process
O Process • OEM, Department and Group
3
N Resp. • Supplier Name
S Prepared Name, Telephone No. and Company of process
4
U by responsible person
L 5 Model Intended model no/year
T
6 Key Date FMEA Due Date (Before Production target date)
A
N 7 FMEA Date Preparation date with revision no.
T 8 Core Team Resp. person and dept. with name, tele no.
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Id
A no.
Title Description
R
• Specify the description of the process
S Process
9 Function / • Where numerous operations with different
Requirement potential failure mode; List the operations as
separate elements
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Id
A no.
Title Description
R
10 Potential • MANNER in which the process could
S Failure Mode potentially fail
• Description of specific NC at that operation
C • Assume incoming parts/materials are correct
O • Exceptions when historical data indicate
incoming deficiencies
N
S • Assume that failure could occur but may not
necessarily occur
U
• Team should pose following questions
L
CUSTOMER is
- How can the process/part fail to meet
T - Next opn.
- Subsequent
requirement?
A Opn.
- Regardless of engg. Spec., what would a
N - End user
customer consider objectionable
T
S Next >>
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Id
A no.
Title Description
R
10 Potential Examples:
S Failure Mode Bent
Burred
Hole off location
C Cracked
O Hole too shallow
N Hole missing
S Handling damage
Dirty
U
Surface too rough
L Deformed
T Open circuited
A Mis-labelled
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Id
A no.
Title Description
R
11 Potential • Effect of failure mode on the customer
S Effects of • Describe what the customer might
Failure notice/experience
C • Customer is next opn./subsequent
opn./locations/dealer/end user
O
N Next operation / End user / Customer /
S Subsequent operations Environment
Cannot locate Noise
U Cannot face Rough
L Cannot bore/tap
Cannot mount
Erratic Operation
Inoperative
T Does not fit Unstable
Does not match Operation impaired
A Cause excessive tool wear Poor appearance
Scrap, re-work Leaks
N Vehicle / item inoperable Rework / Repairs
T Loss of primary function Scrap
Customer dissatisfaction Customer Dissatisfaction
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Id
A no.
Title Description
R
12 Severity (S) • Rank associated with most serious effect for a
S given FAILURE MODE
• Relative ranking within the scope of individual
FMEA
C
O • Ranking can be effected only through design
change
N
• Ranking to be made as per the suggested
S PFMEA Severity Evaluation Criteria
U 13 Classification • To classify any special prodcut/process
L characteristic
T • Example: Critical / Key / Major
A • May also be used to highlight high priority
N failure mode
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
14 Potential • HOW the failure could occur?
S • Describe something that can be corrected or can
cause /
mechanism be controlled
of failure • List every failure cause assignable to each
C potential failure mode
O • Should be described so that remedial effect can be
aimed at those causes
N • Specific errors should be listed
S • Ambiguous phrases not to be used
U • List the root causes under the first level causes
using WHY? WHY? Analysis
L • Describe the causes in such a way that can be
T eliminated or controlled
A • Use the cause and effect diagram, if required
N • Consider input materials in last iteration of cause
analysis
T
S Next >>
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
Typical failure causes may include
A
R Under Man Under machine Under process Under design
Under Raw
Material
S
- Fails to clean - inadequate - improper time - symmetric - new source
- Fails to lubrication / temperature design - alternate
assemble - excessive - inadequate - difficult to material
C - Fails to tight vibration gating / assemble - excessive
O - Mis-locate - excessive venting hardness
spindle run- - mixed
N out material
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 15 Occurrence • Likely hood that a specific cause/mechanism
(O) of failure will occur
• Relative meaning rather than obsolute value
C • Preventing or controlling the
cause/mechanism through design/process
O change is the only way to reduce occurrence
N • Estimate the likelyhood 1 to 10 scale
S • Number of failures that are anticipated during
U the process execution
L • Use statistical data if available otherwise
subjective assessment
T • Refer suggested PFMEA occurrence evaluation
A criteria for ranking
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 16 Current • Controls that either prevent the failure mode
Process or cause or detect the failure mode or cause
Controls • These controls can be
C - SPC
- Error-proofing
O - Post process evaluation
N • Two types of process control
S - Prevention
U - Detection
L Examples
T - Visual Check, one per shift for film thickness
- SPC chart five pieces in an hour
A
- On-line monitoring
N
- 100% on-line inspection
T - Visual monitoring of Ammeter
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 17 Detection (D) • Rank associated with the best detection
control listed in the process control column.
• Relative ranking within the scope of individual
C FMEA
• To achieve lower ranking, planned process
O control to be improved
N • Random quality checks are unlikely to detect
S the existence of an isolated defect
U • Sampling done on a statistical basis is a valid
L detection control
• Use suggested PFMEA detection evaluation
T criteria
A
N
T Next >>
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 17 Detection (D) • While giving ranking, assume the failure is
occurred
• Don’t assume ranking is low because the
C occurrence is low
O • Random controls should not influence
N detection ranking
S
• One detection ranking can be assigned to
U multiple controls
L
T INSPECTION TYPES ARE
A A : Error Proofed
N B : Gauging
T C : Manual Inspection
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 18 Risk Priority • Product of Severity, Occurrence and
Number Detection ranking (S x O x D = RPN)
(RPN) • This value can be between 1 to 1000
C • Prioritization of RPN to be made to take
corrective action
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 19 Recommende • Should be first directed at HIGH SEVERITY, HIGH
d action RPN & other item designated by the team
• When SEVERITY=9/10, special care must be
given regardless of the RPN value
C • To reduce severity design and/or process
O revision is required
N • To reduce probability of occurrence, process
S and/or design revisions are required
• To reduce detection error proofing techniques is
U required
L • Improving Detection control is costly and
T ineffective and a temporary measure only
A • Change to the current control system may be
implemented.
N • Emphasis should be on PREVENTING DEFECTS
T RATHER THAN DETECTING DEFECTS
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M
A Id
Title Description
no.
R
S 20 Responsibility • Individual responsible for action and target
for completion date
recommended
action
C
21 Action(s) • After the action has been implemented, enter
O taken a brief description of actual action and
N effective date
S
U 22 Action results • After the action has been identified, estimate
and record the resulting S, O & D ranking and
L calculate RPN
T • All revised ranking should be reviewed and if
A further action is required repeat the analysis
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
M Follow-up actions
A
R • Actions to be communicated to all affected activities
S • The responsible engineer shall ensure recommended
action has been implemented and adequately
C addressed
O • FMEA is LIVING DOCUMENT and always should reflect
N the latest level of revision
S • Mechanism of assuring recommended actions are
U implemented
L 1. Reviewing design, process and drawing
T
A 2. Conforming the incorporation of changes in all
N necessary documents
T 3. Reviewing control plans
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Process
R Function/Requirements
S
Drilling
* To drill a hole of dia 15.8±0.2mm
* To tap the hole in next operation
C •To assemble at customer end
O Drilling
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Process
Potential Failure Mode
R Function/Requirements
S
Drilling 1. Center Offset (NO)
* To drill a hole of dia 15.8±0.2mm 2. Hole Missing (CE)
* To tap the hole in next operation 3. Not able to locate (CE)
C •To assemble at customer end
4. Hole too shallow (SU)
O Drilling
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of
R Function/Requirements Mode Failure
S
Drilling 1. Center Offset (NO)
* To drill a hole of dia 15.8±0.2mm 2. Hole Missing (CE)
* To tap the hole in next operation 3. Not able to locate (CE)
C •To assemble at customer end
4. Hole too shallow (SU)
O Drilling
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Process Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of
R Function/Requirements Mode Failure
S
Drilling 1. Not able to locate Difficult to locate (NO)
* To drill a hole of dia 15.8±0.2mm (CE)
* To tap the hole in next operation 2. Hole Missing (CE) Does not fit (NO)
C •To assemble at customer end 3. Center Offset (NO) Scrap, re-work (NO)
O Drilling 4. Hole too shallow
Customer dissatisfaction (NO)
N (SU)
S Leaks (CE)

U Cannot locate
Does not fit (NO)
L
T Loss of primary function

A
Scrap, re-work
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Severity
Class
R Mode Failure (S)
S
1. Not able to locate Difficult to locate (NO)
(CE)
2. Hole Missing (CE) Does not fit (NO)
C
3. Center Offset (NO) Scrap, re-work (NO)
O 4. Hole too shallow Customer dissatisfaction (NO)
N (SU)
S Leaks (CE)

U Cannot locate
Does not fit (NO)
L
T Loss of primary function

A
Scrap, re-work
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M Suggested PFMEA Severity Evaluation Criteria

A Criteria : Severity of Effect Criteria : Severity of Effect

This ranking results when a potential failure mode
R Effect
results in final customer and / or a manufacturing
/ assembly plant defect. The final customer
S should always be considered first. If both occur
,use the higher of the two severities
Customer Effect
This ranking results when a potential failure mode
results in final customer and / or a manufacturing
/ assembly plant defect. The final customer
Rank-
-ing
should always be considered first. If both occur,
use the higher of the two severities
(Manufacturing / Assembly Effect)

Very high severity ranking when a potential failure

Hazardous
mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves Or may endanger operator (machine or assembly)
without 10
C warning
noncompliance with government regulation without
warning.
without warning.

O Hazardous
Very high severity ranking when a potential failure
mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves Or may endanger operator (machine or assembly)
with 9
N warning
noncompliance with government regulation with
warning.
with warning.

S Very high Vehicle/item inoperable (loss of primary function).

Or 100% of product may have to be scrapped, or
vehicle/item repaired in repair department with a 8

U repair time greater than one hour.

Or product may have to be sorted and a portion
L High
Vehicle/item operable but at a reduced level of
performance. Customer very dissatisfied.
(less than 100%) scrapped, or vehicle/item repaired
in repair department with a repair time between a
7

T half-hour and an hour.

Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product may
A Moderate
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience
item(s) inoperable. Customer dissatisfied.
have to scrapped with no sorting, or vehicle/item
repaired in repair department with a repair time
6
less than a half-hour.
N Or 100% of product may have to be reworked, or
Vehicle/item operable but Comfort/Convenience
T Low
item(s) operable at a reduced level of performance.
vehicle/item repaired off-line but does not go to
repair department.
5

S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M Suggested PFMEA Severity Evaluation Criteria

A Criteria : Severity of Effect Criteria : Severity of Effect

R This ranking results when a potential failure mode

results in final customer and / or a manufacturing
This ranking results when a potential failure mode
results in final customer and / or a manufacturing
Effect / assembly plant defect. The final customer / assembly plant defect. The final customer Ranking
S should always be considered first. If both occur
,use the higher of the two severities
should always be considered first. If both occur,
use the higher of the two severities

Customer Effect (Manufacturing / Assembly Effect)

Fit and Finish/Squeak and rattle item does not
Or the product may have to be sorted, with no
C Very low conform. Defect noticed by most customers
(greater than 75%).
scrap, and a portion (less than 100%) reworked.
4

O Minor
Fit and Finish/Squeak and Rattle item does not
Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product may
have to be reworked, with no scrap, on-line but 3
conform. Defect noticed by 50% of customers.
N out-of-station.

Fit and Finish/Squeak and Rattle item does not
S Very minor conform. Defect noticed by discriminating
customers (less than 25%).
Or a portion (less than 100%) of the product may
have to be reworked, with no scrap, on-line but in-
station.
2

U None No discernible effect.

Or slight inconvenience to operation or operator, or
1
no effect.
L
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Potential Failure Potential Effect(s) of Severity
Class
R Mode Failure (S)
S
1. Not able to locate Difficult to locate (NO) 7
(CE)
2. Hole Missing (CE) Does not fit (NO) 8 *
C
3. Center Offset (NO) Scrap, re-work (NO) 8
O 4. Hole too shallow Customer dissatisfaction (NO) 7
N (SU)
S Leaks (CE) 7

U Cannot locate
Does not fit (NO)
L
T Loss of primary function

A
Scrap, re-work
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Potential
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s)
S Cl Cause/Mechanism
R Mode of Failure
of Failure
S
1. Not able to locate Difficult to locate (NO) 7 Inaccurate gauging
(CE)
2. Hole Missing (CE) Does not fit (NO) 8 * Locator worn out
C
3. Center Offset (NO) Scrap, re-work (NO) 8 Tool chipped of
O 4. Hole too shallow Customer dissatisfaction
7 Spindle Run out
N (SU) (NO)

S Leaks (CE) 7

U Cannot locate
Does not fit (NO)
L
T Loss of primary function

A
Scrap, re-work
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Potential
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s)
S Cl Cause/Mechanis O
R Mode of Failure
m of Failure
S
1. Not able to locate Difficult to locate (NO) 7 Inaccurate gauging
(CE)
2. Hole Missing (CE) Does not fit (NO) 8 * Locator worn out
C
3. Center Offset (NO) Scrap, re-work (NO) 8 Tool chipped of
O 4. Hole too shallow Customer dissatisfaction
7 Spindle Run out
N (SU) (NO)

S Leaks (CE) 7

U Cannot locate
Does not fit (NO)
L
T Loss of primary function

A
Scrap, re-work
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential1 Failure Modes
M
Suggested PFMEA Occurrence Evaluation Criteria
A
R Probability of Failure Possible Failure Rates Ranking

S Very High: Persistent Failures > 100 per thousand pieces 10

50 per thousand pieces 9

C High: Frequent Failures 20 per thousand pieces 8

O 10 per thousand pieces 7

N Moderate: Occasional Failures 5 per thousand pieces 6
S
2 per thousand pieces 5
U
L 1 per thousand pieces 4

T Low: Relatively Few Failures 0.5 per thousand pieces 3

A 0.1 per thousand pieces 2

N
Remote: Failure is Unlikely = 0.01 per thousand pieces 1
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
A Potential
Potential Failure Potential Effect(s)
S Cl Cause/Mechanis O
R Mode of Failure
m of Failure
S
1. Not able to locate Difficult to locate (NO) 7 Inaccurate gauging 6
(CE)
2. Hole Missing (CE) Does not fit (NO) 8 * Locator worn out 5
C
3. Center Offset (NO) Scrap, re-work (NO) 8 Tool chipped of 8
O 4. Hole too shallow Customer dissatisfaction
7 Spindle Run out 4
N (SU) (NO)

S Leaks (CE) 7

U Cannot locate
Does not fit (NO)
L
T Loss of primary function

A
Scrap, re-work
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
Potential
A Potential Potential
Cause/ Current Process Controls
Failure Effect(s) S Cl O
R Mode of Failure
Mechanism of (Prevention/ Detection)
S Failure
1. Not able Tool life monitoring (P)
Difficult to
to locate locate (NO)
7 Inaccurate gauging 6
Operator visual control (D)
(CE)
C
2. Hole Does not fit
8 * Locator worn out 5 Operator visual control (D)
O Missing (CE) (NO)

N 3. Center Scrap, re-

8 Tool chipped of 8
Tool life monitoring (P)
Offset (NO) work (NO) Operator visual control (D)
S
Customer
U 4. Hole too Preventive Maintenance (P)
dissatisfactio 7 Spindle Run out 4
shallow (SU) n (NO) Operator visual control (D)
L
Leaks (CE) 7
T
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
Potential
A Potential Potential Current Process
C Cause/
Failure Effect(s) S O Controls (Prevention/ D
R Mode of Failure
l Mechanism of
Detection)
S Failure
1. Not able Tool life monitoring (P)
Difficult to Inaccurate
to locate locate (NO)
7
gauging
6
Operator visual control (D)
(CE)
C
2. Hole
O Missing
Does not fit
(NO)
8 * Locator worn out 5 Operator visual control (D)

N (CE)
3. Center Scrap, re- Tool life monitoring (P)
S Offset (NO) work (NO)
8 Tool chipped of 8
Operator visual control (D)
U 4. Hole too Customer Preventive Maintenance (P)
L shallow dissatisfactio 7 Spindle Run out 4
Operator visual control (D)
(SU) n (NO)
T
Leaks (CE) 7
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M Suggested PFMEA Detection Evaluation criteria
A Inspection
Types
Detection Criteria Suggested Range of Detection Methods Ranking
R A B C

S Almost
Impossible
Absolute certainty of
non-detection
X Cannot detect or is not checked 10

Very Controls will probably

X Control is achieved with indirect or random checks only. 9
Remote not detect.
C Remote
Controls have poor
X Control is achieved with visual inspection only. 8
chance of detection.
O Controls have poor
Very Low X Control is achieved with double visual inspection only. 7
N chance of detection.
Control is achieved with charting methods, such as SPC
S Low Controls may detect. X X {Statistical Process Control}.
6

U Moderate Controls may detect. X

Control is based on variable gauging after parts have left the
station, or Go/No Go gauging performed on 100% of the parts 5
after parts have left the station.
L Moderatel Controls have a good Error detection in subsequent operations, OR gauging performed
X X 4
T y High chance to detect. on setup and first -piece check (for set - up causes only)

Error detection in-station, or error detection in subsequent

Controls have a good
A High
chance detect.
X X operations by multiple layers of acceptance: supply, select,
install, verify, cannot accept discrepant part.
3

N Very High
Controls almost
X X
Error detection in-station (automatic gauging with automatic stop
2
certain to detect. feature). Cannot pass discrepant part.
T Controls certain to Discrepant parts cannot be because item has been error -
X 1
S detect. proofed by process / product design.

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

 Potential Failure Modes
M
Potential
A Potential Potential Current Process
C Cause/
Failure Effect(s) S O Controls (Prevention/ D
R Mode of Failure
l Mechanism of
Detection)
S Failure
1. Not able Tool life monitoring (P) 5
Difficult to Inaccurate
to locate locate (NO)
7
gauging
6
Operator visual control (D) 8
(CE)
C
2. Hole
O Missing
Does not fit
(NO)
8 * Locator worn out 5 Operator visual control (D) 8

N (CE)
3. Center Scrap, re- Tool life monitoring (P) 5
S Offset (NO) work (NO)
8 Tool chipped of 8
Operator visual control (D) 8
U 4. Hole too Customer Preventive Maintenance (P) 4
L shallow dissatisfactio 7 Spindle Run out 4
Operator visual control (D) 8
(SU) n (NO)
T
Leaks (CE) 7
A
N
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
 Potential Failure Modes
M
Potential Current Process R
A Potential Potential
Cause/ Controls
Failure Effect(s) of S Cl O D P
R Mode Failure
Mechanism of (Prevention/
Failure Detection) N
S
1. Not Tool life monitoring (P)
able to Difficult to Inaccurate 5 240
7 6 Operator visual control
locate locate (NO) gauging 8 384
C (CE)
(D)

O 2. Hole
Does not fit Operator visual control
N Missing (NO)
8 * Locator worn out 5
(D)
8 320
(CE)
S
3. Center Tool life monitoring (P)
5 320
U Offset
Scrap, re-work
(NO)
8 Tool chipped of 8 Operator visual control
8 512
(NO) (D)
L
4. Hole Preventive
T too Customer Maintenance (P) 4 128
dissatisfaction 7 Spindle Run out 4
A shallow (NO) Operator visual control 8 256
(SU) (D)
N
Leaks (CE) 7
T
S
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS