RQF017 Rev AB

FMEA Objective, scope and goal(s):

Objective:
Scope:
Goal: Drawing/Spec Number:
System:
Subsystem:
Component:
Manufacturing Lead:
RT Core Team Members:

Supplier Core Team Members:

Functional Requirement / Design Potential Failure Mode(s)

Parameter

Raw Material Receipt Wrong material grade

Incorrect measurement
Inward Inspection

Skipped inspection

Inner dia 2.630 Undersize

Inner dia 2.248 Over Size

Thread -1 1/2-16 UN-2B tight and Loose fit

Turning – 1st Operation

Depth 1.870 -Under size and over size

Poor Finish / Tool mark

Wrong tool used

Wrong hole location

Thread 2-11 1/2 NPT Tight and loose

VMC – 2ND 3RD OPR

Drill Hole Dragging
 VMC – 2ND 3RD OPR

0.500 drill dia under size

Burrs in hole
Deburring

Burrs remain

Over-deburring
Hydrostatic Pressure Testing

Leak not detected

Test skipped

Stamping / Punching Missing punch

Misaligned punch

Final Inspection Defect not noticed

Incorrect part passed

Packing Physical damage

Wrong label

Areas to consider in the P-FMEA

Dimensions/Tolerancing
Material
Finish
Test specifications
Other Issues
 Product Design Severity Ranking Guidelines
Effect Severity of Effect

Failure mode affects safety and may

endanger machine, assembly operator,
Hazardous - without warning or end user. Failure will occur without
warning. Production stopped.
Civil/criminal liability.

Failure mode affects safety and may

endanger machine, assembly operator,
Hazardous - with warning or end user. Failure will occur with
warning. Production stopped. Product
recalls.

Item inoperable, loss of primary function,

System Failure
system failure. Major disruption to
production line. 100% of product may
require repair or may be scrapped.

Assembly functional, but with significant

performance degradation. Could pose
Significant System Degradation major disruption to production line.
Product may have to be sorted and a
portion (less than 100%) scrapped.

Assembly functional, but with one or

more non-critical functions degraded.
Moderate System Degradation Minor disruption to production line. A
portion (less than 100%) of the product
may have to be scrapped (no sorting).
 Assembly functional, but some non-
critical function operating at reduced
Minor System Degradation performance. Minor disruption to
production line. Rework may be required
on 100% of product.

Significant cosmetic non-conformance.

May lead to degradation over time.
Obvious Cosmetic
Minor disruption to production line. The
product will require sorting and a portion
(less that 100%) will require general
cosmetic rework.

Minor cosmetic non-conformance.

Minor Cosmetic
Minor disruption to production line. A
portion (less than 100%) of the product
may require some rework.

Very minor cosmetic defect. Defect

Very Minor
detected by very discriminate
observation. A small portion (less than
50%) of the product may require rework.

None No effect.

Probability of Failure Possible Failure Rates

>=1 in 2
Extreme: Process is out of control and
not capable
1 in 3

Uncontrolled: Process is generally not 1 in 6

capable. Failure occurrence is common.

1 in 15
1 in 44
1 in 161

Moderate: Process may generally be

capable, but not centered. Failures
occur less frequently, but common and
standard variation causes exist and have
not been corrected.
Moderate: Process may generally be
capable, but not centered. Failures
occur less frequently, but common and
standard variation causes exist and have
not been corrected.

1 in 740
Low: Defects related to common
variation 1 in 4250
Very Low: Process is capable and well
centered. Outlying variation occurs
from time to time.
1 in 31,250
Remote: Process is capable, centered,
and contains excellent design margin.
<=1 in 340,000

Criteria: Likelihood that an Existing Defect

will be Detected by the Indicated Process
Detection Controls Before the Assembly is Delivered
to the End User

Detection capability unknown. Unable to

No Capability determine reliability of assembly going to
end user.

Very Remote
Very remote likelihood current process
controls will detect a failure.

Remote
Remote likelihood current process
controls will detect a failure.

Low Likelihood
Low likelihood current process controls
will detect a failure.

Poor
Likelihood that current process controls
will detect a failure is poor.

Likely
Process controls are likely to detect a
failure. Room for error substantial.

Capable
Process controls are capable, but leave
room for human error.
 Process controls capable of detecting
Very Capable failures. Processes have easy detection
capability and good reliability.

Process controls are highly capable of

Highly Capable
detecting failures. SPC program exists
with good results or failures are
extremely obvious.

Current process controls will detect the

Extremely Capable
failure nearly without fail. Good SPC
program exists with data to back up
results.
 Potential Effect(s)
SEV
Potential Cause(s)/ Mechanism(s) of Failure
of Failure

Component fails during operation Supplier mix-up

9

Defective parts passed 8 Operator error

Wrong part accepted 7 Workload pressure

Leakage at seal areas 8 Tool wear

Matting part not fit 7 Tool offset error

Mating part not fit 4 Drill wear / Run out

Assembly failure 9 Operator error

Transition failure 4 Poor Machinability

Incorrect profile 7 Setup error

Assembly failure 9 VMC program error

Mating part not fit 4 Drill wear / Run out

Not meeting functional requirement 3 Poor Machinability

Matting part not fit & rework 5 Tool weired

O-ring damage 7 Poor tool condition

Seal failure 7 Incomplete manual work

Dimension loss 6 Excessive pressure

Field failure 10 Test setup issue

Unverified parts shipped 9 Process gap

No traceability 6 Manual skip

Wrong identity 5 Punch wear

Customer return 9 Fatigue or overload

Wrong part supplied 8 Human error

Customer dissatisfaction 6 Rough handling

Wrong part shipped 7 Labeling error

nking Guidelines
Ranking

10

6
 5

2
1

DPMO Sigma Cpk

500,000 <2.00 <0.34

310,000 >=2.00 >=0.34

158,000 >=2.50 >=0.47

67,000 >=3.00 >=0.61

23,000 >=3.50 >=0.76
6200 >=4.00 >=0.91
 1350 >=4.50 >=1.07

235 >=5.00 >=1.23

32 >=5.50 >=1.33

3 >=6.00 >=1.50

Detection Rate (likelihood of finding defect) Ranking

<30% 10

>30% 9

>40% 8

>50% 7

>60% 6

>70% 5

>80% 4
>90% 3

>95% 2

>99.5% 1
 RPN
OCC

DET
Process Controls

180

Material certificate & invoice check

5

4
5 Dimensional inspection 4

6 Check sheet and logs 3

5 In-process check 4

4 In-process check 4

4 Thread gauge Inspection 3

5 In-process check

3 Visual / Comparator

4 Tool pre-check 3

4 Coordinate measurement 3

4 Thread gauge Inspection 4

4 Visual / Comparator 3
5 Measurement Control

4 Visual & touch check 3

5 Final visual inspection 4

3 Training on technique 3

4 Pressure hold monitoring 3

5 Test record tracking 3

4 Final visual check 3

3 Tool condition check 3

4 Final checklist 3

3 Part number check 3

4 Visual inspection 3

3 Barcode check 3
Ranking

10

7
6
5
4

1
 FMEA Type:
FMEA Number:
Prepared By:
FMEA Date:
Revision Date:

Recommended Owner Completion Date

Strengthen material verification

Action(s)

QA

Inspector training QA

Checklist enforcement QA

Tool life tracking Production

Operator training Production

Tool life tracking Production

Operator training Production

Program simulation & review Production

Setup validation Production

Program simulation & review Production

Tool life tracking Production

Visual / Measurement control QA/Production

 Tool regrind schedule Production

Work instruction & checklist QA

Operator training QA

Calibrated gauge QA

Barcode linked log QA

Work instruction Production

Tool change schedule Production

Inspector rotation QA

Barcode verification QA

Protective packaging Stores

Scanner verification Stores

 Action Results

New RPN
New OCC

New DET
New SEV
Actions Taken

9 5 4 180

0
0