How does Failure Mode establish the relation between Cause and Effect? The Effects or Symptoms of a Problem are usually the very first thing we can readily identify. Once the effects are established we can work backwards to identify the Cause and Zero-in the actual Mode or way in which the failure actually happened. The tables below exemplify the use of the FMEA method to analyze, address and archive the improvement efforts made to the headlight circuit assembly of a vehicle. |
(Jan 2018) FMEA: Car Headlight Failures | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product Function Requirements | Failure Mode | Effects | S | Root Cause | O | Current Controls | D | Risk Priority Number |
Headlights aid on night driving | Headlights won't turn on | Car inoperable at night | 10 | Battery Dead | 8 | Keep Lights off | 6 | 480 |
Broken wire | 8 | Check continuity | 3 | 180 | ||||
Headlight Out | 10 | Visual inspection | 2 | 200 | ||||
Switch corroded | 2 | Check continuity | 6 | 120 | ||||
Switch broken | 3 | Check continuity | 6 | 180 | ||||
Corrective Action:
| ||||||||
Action Results:
| ||||||||
The table below is a revision of the table above: |
(Feb 2018) FMEA: Car Headlight Failures | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product Function Requirements | Failure Mode | Effects | S | Root Cause | O | Current Controls | D | Risk Priority Number |
Headlights aid on night driving | Headlights won't turn on | Car inoperable at night | 10 | Battery Dead | 8 | Keep Lights off | 4 | 320 |
Broken wire | 8 | Check indicator | 2 | 160 | ||||
Headlight Out | 10 | Check indicator | 1 | 100 | ||||
Switch corroded | 2 | Check continuity | 6 | 120 | ||||
Switch broken | 3 | Check continuity | 6 | 180 | ||||
Corrective Action:
| ||||||||
Action Results:
| ||||||||
The table below shows how to assign Severity (S) values: |
Criteria for Severity (S) Ranking | Effect | Rank | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failure occurs without warning | Deadly | 10 | ||||
Failure occurs with warning | Hazardous | 9 | ||||
Product is inoperable, total loss of function | Very Serious | 8 | ||||
Product is operable, but with loss of performance | Serious | 7 | ||||
Product is operable, but with loss of comfort | Moderate | 6 | ||||
Product is operable, but with low effect on performance | Low | 5 | ||||
Noticeable effect by most customers | Very Low | 4 | ||||
Noticeable effect by average customers | Minor | 3 | ||||
Noticeable effect by discriminating customers | Very Minor | 2 | ||||
No effect | None | 1 | ||||
The table below shows how to assign Probability of Occurrence (O) values: |
Criteria for Probability of Occurrence (O) Ranking | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Occurrence | Failure Rate | Criteria | Rank | |||
Very High | >1 in 2 | Failure is almost inevitable | 10 | |||
1 in 3 | 9 | |||||
High | 1 in 8 | Repeated Failures | 8 | |||
1 in 20 | 7 | |||||
Moderate | 1 in 80 | Occasional Failures | 6 | |||
1 in 400 | 5 | |||||
1 in 2,000 | 4 | |||||
Low | 1 in 15,000 | Relatively few failures | 3 | |||
1 in 150,000 | 2 | |||||
Remote | <1 in 1,500,000 | Failure is Unlikely | 1 | |||
The table below shows how to assign Detectability (D) values: |
Criteria for Detectability (D) Ranking | |
---|---|
Chances of Detection of Failure Mode | Rank |
No known controls available | 10 |
Very remote chances of detection | 9 |
Remote chances of detection | 8 |
Very low chances of detection | 7 |
Low chances of detection | 6 |
Moderate chances of detection | 5 |
Moderately High chances of detection | 4 |
High chances of detection | 3 |
Very High chances of detection | 2 |
Almost certain to detect | 1 |