As an advanced next step in process improvement, this 2-day workshop was designed to reemphasize the benefits, importance, and proper development of these documents for the benefit of supplier organizations and their customers. As an industry-wide standard, this reference manual clarifies questions concerning the technical development of both Design and Process FMEAs.
This manual supports the machinery the term machinery as used in this manual applies to tooling and equipment also design process from design development through design approval. Program Management: Quality Team - Loading Changes. Please wait. Buy Now! Additional important changes include the following: Totally revised Severity, Occurrence and Detection Tables.
Mode Failure o v s of Failure u e N. Completion Date Taken e c e P. Reqt's Prevention Detection G e What can be done? What n - Design are the How bad e Changes Effect s? Cause s? Actions should be communicated to all affected activities.
The FMEA is a living document and should always l a reflect the latest level, as well as the latest relevant actions, rn including those occurring after the start of production.
They include, but are In not limited to the following: rs a. Reviewing designs, processes, and, drawings, to ensure that to recommended actions have been implemented, o b. End items, along with every related system, ly subsystem, and component, should be evaluated. Team Effort During the initial Design FMEA process, the responsible engineer is expected to directly and actively involve representatives from all affected areas.
The FMEA should be a catalyst to stimulate the interchange of ideas between the functions affected and thus promote a team approach. The process begins by developing a listing of what the design is expected to do and what it is expected not to do, i.
The block diagram can also indicate the flow of information, energy, force, fluid, etc. The object is to understand the deliverables input to the block, the process function performed in the block, and the deliverables output from the block. The diagram illustrates the primary relationship among the items covered in the analysis and establishes a logical order to the analysis.
Fender-Car Product Dev. T accelerated Engrg results Test No. Note: For an example of items see Table 1. The FMEA team members must decide on what Component Name ly constitutes a system, subsystem, or component for their and Number specific activities. The actual boundaries that divide a system, n subsystem, and component are arbitrary and must be set by the O FMEA team. Some descriptions are provided below and some e examples are provided in Appendix F.
These subsystems often have been designed by different teams. Thus, the focus of the System FMEA is to ensure that all interfaces and interactions are covered among rs the various subsystems that make up the system as well as interfaces to other vehicle systems and the customer.
M For example, the front suspension subsystem is a sub-set of the chassis system. Thus, the focus of the Subsystem FMEA is to l ra ensure that all interfaces and interactions are covered among the various components that make up the subsystem.
For example, a strut is a component of f the front suspension which is a subsystem of the chassis o system. Also include the e supplier name, if applicable. It is recommended that each team member's name, department, telephone number, address, etc. Use the nomenclature and show the design level as indicated on the ly engineering drawing. Prior to initial release e.
If the item has more than one function with different l a potential modes of failure, list all the functions separately. The potential failure mode rs may also be the cause of a potential failure mode in a higher- level subsystem or system, or be the effect of one in a lower- to level component. The assumption is made that the failure could occur but may not necessarily occur.
A recommended l ra starting point is a review of past things-gone-wrong, concerns, reports, and group brainstorming. Describe the effects of the failure in terms of what the customer might notice or experience, remembering that the customer may be an internal customer as well as the ultimate end user.
State clearly if the failure mode could impact safety or non- compliance to regulations. The effects should always be stated ly in terms of the specific system, subsystem, or component being analyzed.
Remember that a hierarchical relationship exists n between the component, subsystem, and system levels. For O example, a part could fracture, which may cause the assembly e to vibrate, resulting in an intermittent system operation. The s intermittent system operation could cause performance to U degrade and ultimately lead to customer dissatisfaction.
Severity is a relative ranking within the l ra scope of the individual FMEA. A reduction in the severity ranking index can be effected only through a design change. See Table 2. Failure modes with a rank of e severity 1 should not be analyzed further. Customer very 7 dissatisfied. Customer 6 rn dissatisfied. Customer somewhat dissatisfied. The likelihood of occurrence ranking number has a relative meaning rather than an absolute o value.
See Table 3. The occurrence ranking number is a relative rating within the scope of the FMEA and may not reflect the actual likelihood of occurrence. Suggested Evaluation Criteria The team should agree on an evaluation criteria and ranking system, that is consistent, even if modified for individual product analysis. Current controls e. The P team should always be focused on improving design controls; for example, creating new system tests in the lab, or creating new system modeling algorithms, etc.
The initial occurrence rankings will be affected by the prevention controls provided they are integrated as part of the design intent. This n allows for a quick visual determination that both types of design O controls have been considered. Use of this two-column form is e the preferred approach.
This could l a be due to prevention controls not having been used rn on the same or similar designs. For prevention controls, place a 'P' before each prevention control listed. For detection rs controls, place a 'D' before each detection control listed. M l ra 17 Detection D Detection is the rank associated with the best detection control listed in the design control. Detection is a relative ranking, e within the scope of the individual FMEA. In order to achieve a n lower ranking, generally the planned design control e.
It is best to have detection controls in place as early as possible in the design development process. NOTE: After making the detection ranking, the team should ly review the occurrence ranking and ensure that the occurrence ranking is still appropriate. The new methodology will be of great value to companies desiring to become suppliers of German automakers and the use of a common format and methodology will improve communication between existing suppliers and manufacturers.
Consider the car you drive every day and then consider how many electronic systems are in place to keep you and your passengers safe.
Whether it is the electronic shifting or braking system, active lane-assist or adaptive cruise control, all these systems must operate at peak performance or have an appropriate warning or mitigation if a fault is detected.
We are gradually becoming used to these systems in vehicles and tend to rely on them. Quality-One provides Knowledge, Guidance and Direction in Quality and Reliability activities, tailored to your unique wants, needs and desires.
Contact Us Discover the Value! The cases are as follows: New designs, new technology or new process. The focus of the FMEA can be either new design, new technology or new process centered.
New application of an existing design or process. The FMEA activity should be focused on the impact or the new environment, location or altered duty cycle on the existing design or process. Engineering Changes to an existing design or process. The FMEA review is primarily focused on the change to the product design or process and what circumstances or event initiated the review.
The seven-step approach is as follows: Step One — Planning and Preparation The new manual includes valuable detailed information regarding topics that should be reviewed and considered early in project planning phase prior to any FMEA activities. Step Two — Structure Analysis During the structure analysis step in the FMEA process, the team should identify the boundaries of the design or process being analyzed and define the scope of the analysis to determine which systems, sub-systems, and or components will be part of the FMEA analysis.
Step Three — Function Analysis The functions specified by the design functions are allocated to the system elements during this step in the process, the inputs interfaces and outputs of the function or system are also reviewed. Step Four — Failure Analysis The product potential failure modes, effects and possible causes are developed and reviewed during this step in the process. The Risk Analysis objects include but are not limited to the following: Evaluating the rating of each failure chain for Severity, Occurrence and Detection rankings Application of Prevention controls to address potential causes Application of Detection controls to address the potential causes and failure modes Evaluation of the Action Priority Sometimes initiate collaboration with suppliers and customers Provide the foundation for the optimization step Always remember this, we can take action to prevent or eliminate the causes of failure but we can only detect the actual failure mode.
L — Priority Low — Low priority for consideration and action. Although the team is not prevented from taking action at any level. The main objectives of the Optimization step in the seven-step process are as follows: Identify all appropriate actions to address and mitigate risk in the design or process.
Assign an owner or responsibility for completing the action along with an expected completion date. Experience teaches us that an action without an owner or a due date are orphans and are frequently forgotten and never completed.
Documenting the actions taken and ranking of their effectiveness in reducing risk. Serve as an agent for improvements to the design or process as a result of the actions. Encourage collaboration between departments or various disciplines within the organization and at times with suppliers or customers. The optimization step is most effective when the intent of the action is to: First — Eliminate a Failure effect Second — Reduce occurrence of the failure Third — Increase the detection of the failure The severity can be changed but experience has proven that it is rare and typically requires a major design or process change or change in the design or process requirements.
This may include the 5Ts mentioned previously. Intent, Timing, Team, Task, and Tool A summary of the scope of the analysis along with identification of new content. A brief explanation of the method used to develop the design or process functions. Summary of the high-risk failures identified and the actions developed to mitigate the risk. A plan for completion of any on-going or future design or process improvement actions. The methodology is intended for evaluation of systems that perform active or passive monitoring and response functions.
Failure Chain. Severity — How bad is the failure effect if the fault were to occur. MSR Failure Analysis. Contact Us. Search Submit. Remember Me. Log In. Confirm Password.
0コメント