Industrial Coating Systems Group Project Number: FMEA Start Date: Last Update:

Product Development Group Product Name: FMEA Due Date: Design FMEA

DESIGN - Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) Project Leader: FMEA Completion Date: Responsibility
Core Team:

Action Results

Classification

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Effect(s) Risk

Occurrence
Severity
System,

Resulting
Detection
Severity
Material Potential Failure of Failure Current Design Control Current Design Control Priority
Material Description Sub-syst, Function Potential Cause of Failure Recommended Action(s)

RPN
Number Mode (In eyes of the Prevention Detection Number
Comp
customer) (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 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
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 0
0 0

707746439.xls FMEA Printed: 11/26/2023 Page 1 of 8

 Action Results

Classification

Occurrence

Detection
Potential Effect(s) Risk

Occurrence
Severity
System,

Resulting
Detection
Severity
Material Potential Failure of Failure Current Design Control Current Design Control Priority
Material Description Sub-syst, Function Potential Cause of Failure Recommended Action(s)

RPN
Number Mode (In eyes of the Prevention Detection Number
Comp
customer) (RPN)

0 0
0 RPN Max 0
0.0 RPN Avg 0.0
0 RPN Median 0

707746439.xls FMEA Printed: 11/26/2023 Page 2 of 8

 Effect Criteria: Severity of Effect Ranking

Hazardous Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe operation and/or 10
without warning involves noncompliance with approval regulations without warning

Hazardous with Very high severity ranking when a potential failure mode affects safe operation and/or 9
warning involves noncompliance with approval regulations with warning

8
Very high Equipment/component inoperable, with loss of primary function

Equipment/component operable, but at reduced level of performance. Customer 7

High dissatisfied

Equipment/component operable, but Comfort/convenience item(s) inoperable. Customer 6

Moderate experience discomfort.

Equipment/component operable, but Comfort/convenience item(s) operable at reduced 5

Low level of performance. Customer experience some level of dissatisfaction.

Defect in item appearance/squeak and Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by 4
Very Low most customers

Defect in item appearance/squeak and Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by 3
Minor average customers

Defect in item appearance/squeak and Rattle item does not conform. Defect noticed by 2
Very Minor discriminating customers

1
None No Effect

Severity
 Detection Criteria: Likelihood of Detection by Design Control Ranking

Absolute Design Control will not and/or can not detect a potential cause and subsequent 10
Uncertainty failure mode; or there is no Design control

Very remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and 9
Very Remote subsequent failure mode.

Remote chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and 8
Remote subsequent failure mode.

Very low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and 7
Very Low subsequent failure mode.

Low chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and subsequent 6
Low failure mode.

Moderate chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and 5
Moderate subsequent failure mode.

Moderately high chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and 4
Moderately High subsequent failure mode.

High chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and subsequent 3
High failure mode.

Very high chance the Design Control will detect a potential cause and 2
Very High subsequent failure mode.

Design Control will almost certainly detect a potential cause and subsequent 1
Almost Certain failure mode.

Detection
 Probability of Failure Possible Failure Rates Ranking

10
>= 1 in 2

9
Very High: Failure is almost inevitable 1 in 3

8
1 in 8

7
High: Repeated Failure 1 in 20

6
1 in 80

5
1 in 400

4
Moderate: Occasional Failure 1 in 2,000

3
1 in 15,000

2
Low: Relatively Few Failure 1 in 150,000

1
Remote: Failure is Unlikely <= 1 in 1,500,000

Occurrence
 Classification
Severity Ranking Occurrence ranking
Ranking

Critical
9 or 10 2 or more
Characteristics ©

Significant
4 thur 8 4 or more
Characteristics ©

Classification
This column can be used to the choice of the team. It may be used to classify any special
product characteristics (e.g., key or safety) for components, subsystems, or systems that
may require additional process controls. The classification can originate from customer
demands or from the S and O values as described in GS-0004.
Any item deemed to require special process controls should be identified on the Design
FMEA form with the appropriate character or symbol in the Classification column and
should be addressed in the recommended actions column.
Each item identified as above in the Design FMEA should have the special process
controls identified in the Process FMEA.
It might also be used as an explanation of a high score for a failure mode that will never
reach a customer and thus should have a low score. But being a failure mode that is
discovered late in the production process and therefore is expensive to correct means it is
given a high score. That could be marked with an E for economy in the classification
column.

Classification
 Criteria: Occurrence L
Calculation and
Probability of Failure Possible Failure Rates Rating Analysis
Very High, Failure is >1 in 2 10 Not possible
almost inevitable 1 in 3 9

High, Repeated failures 1 in 8 8 Possible, with low

1 in 20 7 correlation to test
results

Moderate, Occasional 1 in 80 6 Possible, with

failures 1 in 400 5 generally acceptable
1 in 2000 4 correlation to test
results

Low, Relatively few 1 in 15000 3 Possible, with high

failures 1 in 150.000 2 level of correlation
to test results

Remote 1 in 1.500.000 1 Common, with high

level of correlation
to test results
 Criteria: Occurrence Likelihood
Design Margin Lab and Field Test
Design Experience Results Deviation
Unknown Similar designs in Typically not
similar applications approved
frequently show
problems

Small, not well Similar designs in

established or similar applications
understood sometimes have
problems

Small, somewhat Some problems detected Typically approved

established and in first round of testing, for small
understood but easy to overcome differences, <33%
with help of analysis of tolerance range

Large, somewhat Proven design which Typically approved

established and typically passes first for larger
understood round of testing, similar differences, up to
designs in similar 100% of tolerance
Large, well established applica­tions do not have range
and understood problems