PFMEA Template

FMEA Objective, scope and goal(s):
Process ID
FMEA Type: Process

FMEA Number:
Prepared By:
FMEA Date:
Revision Date:
Process Lead
Core Team Members:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
New DET
Actions Taken
New RPN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Owner
Completion
Date
New SEV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Action(s)
New OCC
DET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Current Process Controls
RPN
Potential Failure Mode(s)
Potential Cause(s)/
Mechanism(s) of Failure
OCC
Process Step
SEV
Action Results
Potential Effect(s)
of Failure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Process FMEA
1
1
Column C
1
1
RPN Value
1
1
Process Step
FMEA Objective, scope and goal(s): Review capacitor assy/test process for potential failure modes and control/risk mitigation strategy
Process ID Fictional Capacitor Assembly/Test
FMEA Type: Process

FMEA Number: XXXX1
Prepared By: Anybody
FMEA Date: 9/18/2006
Process Lead Process Engineering Manager
Revision Date: A
Core Team Members: Swage line operator, Welding line operator, Impregration line operator, Line Supervisor, Process Engineering, Design Engineering, Quality Engineering, Process Engineering Manager
9 operator error, material
Swaging
hi-pot, corona, DF, IR
scrap
9 overheated dielectric, operator skill,

workmanship, tooling, swage
dimensions
Welding
leaks, dimensions, hi-pot, corona
scrap
8 fixtures, operator skill, chassis/cover

dimension not specified, material
type, contamination
Impregnation
corona
rework
5 machine (time, temp, oil quality),

operator
Impregnation
DF, low capacitance
scrap
9 machine (time, temp, oil quality),

operator
Welding
leaks, dimensions, hi-pot failure,

corona
rework
3 fixtures, operator skill, chassis/cover

dimension not specified, material
type, contamination
Curing
dimensions, soft, cap variation, DF
scrap or rework
3 variable compression time, variable

pressure, temp, humidity, time
Winding
capacitance, dimension
scrap
Testing Pads
damage to part
Testing
false failure
10 Helium leak test, ATP seat test,

thermal shock
4 can size
9 visual inspection, tooling, operator
quallification, electrical test
DET
PE/QE
Complete
18
PE/QE/Line
Spv
PE/QE/Line
Spv
Complete
18
Complete
1.5
14
Recommended
Action(s)
3.5 315 DOE to optimize parameter settings

for robustness
5 180 Review operator certification
requirements, mat'l requirements
2 162 Process capability analysis
Review operator certification
requirements
Owner
Completion
Date
Actions Taken
136 Process capability analysis

requirements
6S station review
PE/QE/Line
Spv
IE
Complete
16
8 gas test, oil quality, water test, PM,

low temp seal, electrical test
80
Process capability analysis

requirements
PE/QE/Line
Spv
Complete
10
3 gas test, oil quality, water test, PM,

low temp seal, electrical test
54

requirements
PE/QE/Line
Spv
Complete
18
51

requirements
PE/QE/Line
Spv
Complete
18
8 cap measurement, feel, dimension,

pressure/load cell,
humidity/temp/time
48
PE/QE
Complete
18
2 operator error, winding machine,

material (thickness, elongation,
damaged, curls)
8 FAV, measure capacitance,

dinemsions, hi-pot, PM, incoming
and at-station inspection, set-up
adjustment
32
PE/QE
Complete
12
scrap
2 operator error, fixturing, toolling error
3 visual inspection
12
None
---
None
12
retest
2 operator error, test fixture error
3 software error flag, verification

procedure, cal logs
0
0
12
None
---
None
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.5 Helium leak test, bubble test,

fixtures, QC dimension
New DET
9 time and temperature
scrap
New RPN
scrap
low capacitance
New SEV
leaks, dimensions
New OCC
Terminal brazing (cover and

cap_)
Assembly
Current Process Controls
RPN
Potential Cause(s)/
Mechanism(s) of Failure
OCC
Potential Effect(s)
of Failure
Potential Failure Mode(s)
SEV
Action Results
Process Step
8.5 Helium leak test, bubble test,

fixtures, QC dimension
0
0
Process FMEA
350
300
Fictional Capacitor Assembly/Test
250
200
RPN Value
150
100
50
0
Process Step
Product Design Severity Ranking Guidelines

Effect
Severity of Effect
Hazardous - without
warning
Failure mode affects safety and may endanger machine, assembly

operator, or end user. Failure will occur without warning. Production
stopped.
Hazardous - with
warning
Failure mode affects safety and may endanger machine, assembly

operator, or end user. Failure will occur with warning. Production
stopped.
System Failure
Item inoperable, loss of primary function, system failure. Major

disruption to production line. 100% of product may require repair or
may be scrapped.
Significant System
Degradation
Assembly functional, but with significant performance degradation.

Could pose major disruption to production line. Product may have to
be sorted and a portion (less than 100%) scrapped.
Moderate System
Degradation
Assembly functional, but with one or more non-critical functions

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

reduced performance. Minor disruption to production line. Rework
may be required on 100% of product.
Obvious Cosmetic
Significant cosmetic non-conformance. May lead to degradation over

time. Minor disruption to production line. The product will require
sorting and a portion (less that 100%) will require general cosmetic
rework.
Minor Cosmetic
Minor cosmetic non-conformance. Minor disruption to production line.

A portion (less than 100%) of the product may require some rework.
Very Minor
None
Very minor cosmetic defect. Defect detected by very discriminate

observation. A small portion (less than 50%) of the product may
require rework.
No effect.
General Severity Ranking Guidelines

Effect
Severity of Internal/External Effect
Liability
Failure will affect safety or compliance to law

Moderate to major reliability failures
End user recalls
Premature end-of-life (wear out)
Increased early life failures
Intermittent functionality
Reliability/reputation
at risk
Customer quality
inconveniences
Internal yield or
special handling
required
Unnoticed
Minor reliability failures

Customer line impact / lines down
Impacts the yield of customer
Wrong package / part / marking
Products performing marginally
Involved customer's special handling
Damaged the customer's equipment
Product assembly error
Damage to down stream equipment
Major yield hit
Significant line yield loss
Minor yield hit
Low line yield loss
Special internal handling, effort or annoyance
Unnoticed either internally or externally
nes
Ranking
10
2
1
Ranking
10
6
5
4
3
2
1
Probability of Failure
Extreme: Process is out of control and not capable
Uncontrolled: Process is generally not capable.

Failure occurrence is common.
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.
Low: Defects related to common variation
Very Low: Process is capable and well centered.
Outlying variation occurs from time to time.
Remote: Process is capable, centered, and contains
excellent design margin.
Possible Failure
Rates
DPMO
>=1 in 2
500,000
1 in 3
310,000
1 in 6
158,000
1 in 15
67,000
1 in 44
23,000
1 in 161
6200
1 in 740
1350
1 in 4250
235
1 in 31,250
32
<=1 in 340,000
Sigma
Cpk
Ranking
<2.00
<0.34
10
>=2.00
>=0.34
>=2.50
>=0.47
>=3.00
>=0.61
>=3.50
>=0.76
>=4.00
>=0.91
>=4.50
>=1.07
>=5.00
>=1.23
>=5.50
>=1.33
>=6.00
>=1.50
Detection
Criteria: Likelihood that an Existing Defect will be

Detected by the Indicated Process Controls Before the
Assembly is Delivered to the End User
No Capability
Detection capability unknown. Unable to 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.
Very Capable
Process controls capable of detecting failures. Processes have

easy detection capability and good reliability.
Highly Capable
Process controls are highly capable of detecting failures. SPC

program exists with good results or failures are extremely obvious.
Extremely Capable
Current process controls will detect the failure nearly without fail.
Good SPC program exists with data to back up results.
Detection Rate (likelihood

of finding defect)
Ranking
<30%
10
>30%
>40%
>50%
>60%
>70%
>80%
>90%
>95%
>99.5%
AIAG Compiled Ratings

Rating
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Severity of effect
Hazardous and without
warning
Hazardous and with warning
Likelihood of Occurrence
Very high; failure is almost
inevitable
Loss of primary function

Reduced primary function
performance
High; repeated failures
Loss of secondary function

Reduced secondary function
performance
Minor defect noticed by most
customers
Minor defect noticed by some
customers
Minor defect noticed by
discriminating customers
No effect
Moderate; occasional failures
Low; relatively few failures
Remote: failure is unlikely
ngs
Ability to Detect
Cannot detect
Very remote chance of
detection
Remote chance of detection
Very low chance of detection
Low chance of detection
Moderate chance of detection
Moderately high chance of
detection
Almost certain detection
Potential Team Members

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Process Engineer - Generally the Team Leader

Production Operators
Industrial Engineer
Design Engineer
Quality Engineer
Reliability Engineer
Tooling Engineer
Maintenance Engineer
Project Manager
Others including Sales, QA/QC, Operations
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Process Mapping Overview
Description
Identify the process to map
Ask the people most familiar with the process to help construct the map
Agree on the start and end points; defining the scope of the process to be mapped is important, otherwise the task can becom
Agree on the level of detail to use; its better to start out with less detail, increasing detail only as needed to accomplish your pu
Identify the sequence and the steps taken to carry out the process; walk the line if necessary
Construct the process map either from left to right or from top to bottom, using standard flow chart symbols and connecting the
Identify key process characteristics as potential sources of failure
Is the process standardized, or are the people doing the work in different ways?
Are steps repeated or out of sequence?
Are there steps where errors occur frequently?
Are there rework loops?
Analyze the results and document potential failure modes at each process step
Potential Failure Causes

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Omitted processing
Processing errors
Errors setting up work pieces
Missing parts
Wrong parts
Processing wrong work piece
Mis-operation
Adjustment error
Equipment not set up properly
Tools and/or fixtures improperly prepared
Poor control procedures
Improper equipment maintenance
Bad recipe
Fatigue
Lack of Safety
Hardware failure
Failure to enforce controls
Environment
Stress connections
Poor FMEA(s)
Potential Process Controls:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Standardized work instructions/procedures

Fixtures and jigs
Mistake-proofing tooling and/or product design
Mechanical interference interfaces
Mechanical counters
Mechanical sensors
Electrical/Electronic sensors
Job sheets or Process packages
Bar coding with software integration and control
Marking
Training and related educational safeguards
Visual checks
Post process inspection/testing
Gage studies
Statistical Process Control
Design of experiments on the process/Robust process design
Preventive maintenance
Automation & Real Time Control

PFMEA Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PFMEA Template

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PFMEA Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FMEA Objective, scope and goal(s):

FMEA Type: Process

Current Process Controls

Potential Failure Mode(s)

Process ID Fictional Capacitor Assembly/Test

FMEA Type: Process

9 operator error, material

hi-pot, corona, DF, IR

9 overheated dielectric, operator skill,

leaks, dimensions, hi-pot, corona

8 fixtures, operator skill, chassis/cover

5 machine (time, temp, oil quality),

DF, low capacitance

9 machine (time, temp, oil quality),

leaks, dimensions, hi-pot failure,

3 fixtures, operator skill, chassis/cover

dimensions, soft, cap variation, DF

3 variable compression time, variable

10 Helium leak test, ATP seat test,

3.5 315 DOE to optimize parameter settings

136 Process capability analysis

8 gas test, oil quality, water test, PM,

Process capability analysis

3 gas test, oil quality, water test, PM,

Process capability analysis

Process capability analysis

8 cap measurement, feel, dimension,

Process capability analysis

2 operator error, winding machine,

8 FAV, measure capacitance,

Process capability analysis

2 operator error, fixturing, toolling error

2 operator error, test fixture error

3 software error flag, verification

8.5 Helium leak test, bubble test,

9 time and temperature

Terminal brazing (cover and

Current Process Controls

Potential Failure Mode(s)

8.5 Helium leak test, bubble test,

Fictional Capacitor Assembly/Test

Product Design Severity Ranking Guidelines

Failure mode affects safety and may endanger machine, assembly

Failure mode affects safety and may endanger machine, assembly

Item inoperable, loss of primary function, system failure. Major

Assembly functional, but with significant performance degradation.

Assembly functional, but with one or more non-critical functions

Assembly functional, but some non-critical function operating at

Significant cosmetic non-conformance. May lead to degradation over

Minor cosmetic non-conformance. Minor disruption to production line.

Very minor cosmetic defect. Defect detected by very discriminate

General Severity Ranking Guidelines

Severity of Internal/External Effect

Failure will affect safety or compliance to law

Minor reliability failures

Extreme: Process is out of control and not capable

Uncontrolled: Process is generally not capable.

Moderate: Process may generally be capable, but not

Criteria: Likelihood that an Existing Defect will be