Page 1 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/ SAE J1739
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Current Design Current Design Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recal 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 2 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Current Design Current Design Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible recall 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 3 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Current Design Current Design Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 4 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Design Current Design Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target P.
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or function being system/subsystem/ as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class analyzed component could customers. and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.

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
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
 Page 5 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Design Current Design Responsibility &
Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.
Class

Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target P.

Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 6 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Item/Part Design Controls Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Design Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target P.
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List Causes List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or function being system/subsystem/ as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class analyzed component could customers. and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.

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
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
 Page 7 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Item/Part Design Controls Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Design Responsibility &
Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.
Class

Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target P.

Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 8 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Design FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Part Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential Responsibility

Detection

Detection
Current Design Current Design

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended & Target Effective R.

Class
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Actions Taken P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection
Failure Date
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions Effective
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization date
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and or individual
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. and target
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or completion
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires date
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required Due Date
Responsible
Was the DFMEA prepared using the
Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors
Potential Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (FMEA) reference manual, and
applicable customer specific
1 requirements?
Have historical campaign and warranty
2 data been
Have best reviewed?
practices and lessons learned
from similar part DFMEAs been
3 considered?
Does the DFMEA identify Special
4 Characteristics?
Have pass-through characteristics
(glossary) been identified and reviewed
with affected suppliers for FMEA alignment
and appropriate controls in the supply
5 base?
Have special characteristics designated by
the customer or organization been
reviewed with affected suppliers to assure
6 FMEAdesign
Have alignment?
characteristics that affect
high risk priority failure modes been
7 identified?
Have appropriate corrective actions been
8 assigned to high risk priority numbers?
Have appropriate corrective actions been
9 assigned to high severity numbers?
Have risk priorities been revised when
corrective actions have been completed
10 and verified?

Revision Date

Prepared by:
Instructions
While there were originally only two forms of FMEA--design and process,
AIAG 4th has many versions of both form and SAE J1739 adds FMEAs for Machinery

1. Pick the right form (design or process) and type (A-H, simplest to most detailed).
2. For each part or process, work through each column of the form to identify failure modes and effects.

Design FMEAs
DFMEA Checklist
A. Basic Form with minimal information (SAE J1739)
B. Adds Requirements column
C. Form A with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
D. Form B with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
E. Form D with separate columns for cause/failure mode in Detection Design Controls
F. Form B with separate columns for Responsibility, Target Completion Date, Actions Taken and Completion date

Process FMEAs
PFMEA Checklist
A. Basic Form with minimal information (SAE J1739)
B. Adds Requirements column
C. Form A with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
D. Form B with Prevention controls to left of Occurrence column
E. Form D with separate columns for cause/failure mode in Detection Design Controls
F. Form B with separate columns for Responsibility, Target Completion Date, Actions Taken and Completion date
G. Form B with ID, Product and Process within a bridged Requirements Column
H. Form D and G combined.

Machinery FMEAs (SAE J1739 Aug 2002)

A. Basic Form - Two columns for machinery and design controls
B. Basic Form - One columns for combined machinery and design controls
 © 2010 KnowWare International Inc

2696 S Colorado Blvd Ste 555

Denver, CO 80222
The copyright for this template is owned by KnowWare International Inc.

Licensed users:
May update this file
May copy this file
May share completed files with co-workers, suppliers and customers

Unlicensed users:
May receive and review completed templates created by licensed users
May NOT use this template to perform their own analysis without a license
mpletion date
To purchase a license:
http://www.qimacros.com/store
Email orders@qimacros.com
Call 888 468 1537
Fax a PO to 888 468 1536
 A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required Due Date
Responsible

Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross

functional team? Has the team taken into
account all customer specific requirements,
including FMEA methodologies as shown in
1 the current edition of FMEA?
Have all operations including subcontracted or
2 outsourced processes and services been
2 considered?

Have all operations affecting customer

requirements including fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been
3 identified and listed sequentially?

4 Were similar part/process FMEAs considered?

Have historical campaign and warranty data
5 been reviewed and used in the analysis?

Have you applied the appropriate controls to

address all of the identified failure modes? -—
Were severity, detection and occurrence
revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms
6 of the subsequent operation, assembly, and

Were severity, detection and occurrence

7 revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms
of the subsequent operation, assembly, and
8 product?
 Were customer plant problems used as an aid
9 in developing the PFMEA?

Have the causes been described in terms of

10 something that can be corrected or controlled?
Have provisions been made to control the
cause 11 of the failure mode prior to
11 subsequent or the next operation?

Revision Date

Prepared by:
 Page 14 of 31

Failure Mode & Effect Analysis

Item Axel Pin Process Responsibility: Production Engineering
PFMEA No.: 18SPL102-1
Model Years: Axel Key Date: 12/11/2014 PREPARED BY: Sumeet Saini
PROCESS FMEA Rev.No: 0
Core Team: Satyendra, Sumeet, Yogesh, Sunil, Ramesh Chand, Tejveer Singh PFMEA DATE: 12/12/14

Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
R. P. N.
Potential

Detection

Detection
Severity

Severity
Responsibility &
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Current Process Recommended Actions Taken &

Class
R. P.
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Current Process Controls Prevention Target N.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of Controls Detection Action(s) Completion Date
Completion Date
Failure

List every
Design actions to
Consequences on potential cause
reduce severity, Name of
Name, Part Manner in which part other systems, and/or failure List detection activities
List prevention activities to assure occurrence and organization or Actions and
Number, or could fail: cracked, parts, or people: mechanism: to assure process
process adequacy and prevent or 0 detection ratings. individual and actual completion 0
Class loosened, deformed, noise, unstable, incorrect material, adequacy and prevent or
reduce occurrence. Severity of 9 or target completion date
leaking, oxidized, etc. inoperative, improper reduce occurrence.
10 requires date
impaired, etc. maintenance,
special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Non compliance with test Part failure & Wrong material Raw Material from Material test report of
Raw material receiving and

6 - 2 5 60 0
certificate Material scraped supply authoized/approved manufacturer supplier

Wrong material
inspection

Bar dia. Die Wear 4 - 2 - Incoming inspection 4 32 0

supply
Part failure & Wrong material Raw Material from
Hardness 4 - 2 Incoming inspection 4 32 0
Material scraped supply authoized/approved manufacturer
Hydrogen Problem from
Rusty material 4 - 3 Process Stabilised at vender end Check at rec. inspection 5 60 0
embrittlement material supplier
Part failure & Machining setting
Blanking Dimensional variation 6 - 3 - Setup varification 5 90 0
Material scraped not ok
Change Thread
Turning, Chamfering & threading

Customer dis- Cutting chips &

Burr 3 - 10 - Setup Varification 2 60 cutiing insert - - 5 5 2 50
satisfaction burrs in Threads
after 150 pieces
Customer dis-
Dents 6 - Material Handling 7 - 100% inspection 2 84 0
satisfaction
Part failure &
6 - Unstable clamping 6 Check clamping methods Setup Varification 2 72 0
Material scraped
Chattering
Part failure & Excessive cutting
6 - 7 Re-examine process parameters Setup Varification 2 30 0
Material scraped conditions
Customer dis- Insert
Rough Finish 5 - Insertl Wear 3 Setup Varification 2 30 0
satisfaction Checking
 Page 15 of 31

Failure Mode & Effect Analysis

Item Axel Pin Process Responsibility: Production Engineering
PFMEA No.: 18SPL102-1
Model Years: Axel Key Date: 12/11/2014 PREPARED BY: Sumeet Saini
PROCESS FMEA Rev.No: 0
Core Team: Satyendra, Sumeet, Yogesh, Sunil, Ramesh Chand, Tejveer Singh PFMEA DATE: 12/12/14

Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
R. P. N.
Potential

Detection

Detection
Severity

Severity
Responsibility &
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / Current Process Recommended Actions Taken &

Class
R. P.
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Current Process Controls Prevention Target N.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of Controls Detection Action(s) Completion Date
Completion Date
Failure

Part failure & Machining setting

6 - 6 Re-examine process parameters Setup Varification 3 108 0
Material scraped not ok
Chattering
Part failure &
Milling & stamping

5 - Unstable clamping 3 Check clamping methods Setup varification 3 45 0

Material scraped
Customer dis- Change inserts
Burr 3 - Tool wear 9 - 100% inspection 2 54 0
satisfaction after 150 pieces
Excessive cutting
Silver streek marks Bad appearance 3 - 3 Re-examine process parameters 100% inspection 2 18 0
conditions

Part failure &

Stamping position 3 - Unstable clamping 2 Check clamping methods 100% inspection 2 12 0
Material scraped
Life cycle time Process parameter Check at final
Plating Thickness less 5 - 8 - 2 80
lessof key not ok inspection
Problem in pin Process parameter Check at final
Plating Thickness more 7 sc 7 - 2 98
Plating

insertion not ok inspection

Process parameter
White patches, Black
not ok/Problem
spot, scratch & dull Appearance failure 4 - 8 - !00% visual inspection 2 64
with plating
surface
chemical
Part failure & inadequate
scratches 4 - 10 Filter by magnet 100% visual inspection 3 120 Change filter - - 4 5 3 60
Material scraped filtering of coolant
Part failure & Grinding wheel
Dimensional variation 6 - 9 True wheel setting 100% inspection 3 162 Wheel setting - - 6 4 3 72
Grinding

Material scraped out of balance

Part failure & Process
6 - 9 Stock Removal to heavy 100% inspection 3 162 Change settings - - 6 4 3 72
Material scraped Parameters
Run out
Part failure & Grinding pressure
6 - 9 Re-examine process parameters 100% inspection 3 162 Reduce pressure 6 4 3 72
Material scraped to high
 Page 16 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Current Process Current Process Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 17 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Current Process Current Process Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Requirements
Name, Part Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 18 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Process Current Process Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target P.
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or function being system/subsystem/ as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class analyzed component could customers. and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.

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
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
 Page 19 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Current Design Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Process Current Process Responsibility &
Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.
Class

Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target P.

Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 20 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Process Step Process Controls Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Process Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target P.
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requirements of Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List Causes List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or function being system/subsystem/ as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class analyzed component could customers. and/or failure assure design assure design occurrence and individual and date
fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.

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
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
 Page 21 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Current Detection
Process Step Process Controls Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Process Responsibility &
Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.
Class

Requirements Effect(s) of Controls Cause Failure Mode P. Target P.

Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Completion Date
Failure
Function
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 22 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential Responsibility

Detection

Detection
Current Process Current Process

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended & Target Effective R.

Class
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Actions Taken P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection
Failure Date
Function
Name, Part Requirements Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions Effective
Number, or of function fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization date
Class being analyzed deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and or individual
etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. and target
Function inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or completion
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires date
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recalll 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 23 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Requirements Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Current Process Current Process Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
ID Product Process Potential Failure Mode Controls Controls P. Target P.
of Failure Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requireme Manner in which part could Consequences on List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or nts of fail: cracked, loosened, other systems, potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class function deformed, leaking, oxidized, parts, or people: and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
being etc. noise, unstable, mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function analyzed inoperative, incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
impaired, etc. improper reduce reduce 10 requires
maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
fatigue, wear, etc.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
Annoyance
Loss or degradation
of secondary function
Loss or degradation
of primary function
Failure to meet
safety/regulations
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
Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 24 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Requirements Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Current Process Current Process Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
ID Product Process Effect(s) of Controls Controls P. Target P.
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Name, Part Requir Manner in which Effects of failure List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Number, or ements system/subsystem/ as perceived by potential cause activities to activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Class of component could customers. and/or failure assure process assure process occurrence and individual and date
functio fail: cracked, Consequences mechanism: adequacy and adequacy and detection ratings. target completion
Function n loosened, on other incorrect material, prevent or prevent or Severity of 9 or date
being deformed, leaking, systems, parts, improper reduce reduce 10 requires
analyz oxidized, etc. or people: noise, maintenance, occurrence. occurrence. special attention.
ed inoperative, fatigue, wear, etc.
impaired, etc.

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
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Rating Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <.01/1000 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/1000000 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Annoyance 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/100000 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/10000 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Loss or degradation 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/2000 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
of secondary function6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/500 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
Loss or degradation 7. High 7. High - 1/100 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
of primary function 8. Very High 8. High - 1/50 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Failure to meet 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/20 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning10. Very High >1/10 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
 Page 25 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Process FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition http://www.aiag.org/
FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Process Page 1 of 1
Item Name/number of item Responsibility: Name Prepared by: Name/contact info
Model Years: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 7/15/08 Rev FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Process Step Requirements Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential

Detection

Detection
Potential Severity Current Process Current Process Responsibility &

Severity
Potential Failure Cause(s) / R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.
ID Product Process Effect(s) of Class Controls Controls P. Target P.
Mode Mechanism(s) of N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Failure Prevention Detection Completion Date
Failure
Function
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 26 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition SAE J1739 Aug2002
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential Current

Detection

Detection
Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Current Machinery Machinery R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.

Class
Potential Failure Mode P. Target P.
Failure Mechanism(s) of Controls Prevention Controls N. Action(s) Completion Date N.
Completion Date
Failure Detection
Requirements
Name, Manner in which machinery Consequences on other List every List prevention List detection Design actions to Name of Actions and
Machine could fail: bent, cracked, dirty,systems, parts, or people: potential cause activities to assure activities to reduce severity, organization or actual completion
Number, or broken, warped, binding, worn, Breakdowns, degraded and/or failure machinery adequacy assure occurrence and individual and date
Class grounded, short cuircuit, open output, inadequate mechanism: tool and prevent or reduce machinery detection ratings. target completion
circuit. torque, intermittent drift, incorrect occurrence. adequacy and Severity of 9 or date
Function operation, excessive material specified, prevent or 10 requires
Assumes: noise, excessive effort, over-stressing, reduce special attention.
1. Incoming parts and materials endangers operator, improper occurrence.
are correct. increased cycle time, maintenance,
2. Machinery will be built, impared performance, improper
installed, aadjusted, and loss of production, specification,
maintained to specifications partial or complete loss contamination,
3. All preceding steps in the of function, excessive excessive heat,
sequence of operations have been vibration, lack of wear.
executed to specifications. repeatability, excessive
backlash.

Severity of Effect:
No Effect
within spec limits
Downtime 0-10 min, no defects
Downtime 10-30 min, no defects
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
Occurrence Failure/cycles Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
1. None 1. Very low <1/900000 R(t)=98% MTBF=50x 1. Almost Certain Consumer Owner Safety Problem 10
2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/900000 R(t)=95% MTBF=20x 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
3. Minor 3. Low - 1/540000 R(t)=90% MTBF=10x 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/360000 R(t)=85% MTBF=6x 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
 Page 27 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition SAE J1739 Aug2002
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Item/Function Action Results

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential Current

Detection

Detection
Severity Responsibility &

Severity
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Current Machinery Machinery R. Recommended Actions Taken & R.
Potential Failure Mode
Failure Class Mechanism(s) of Controls Prevention Controls
P.
Action(s)
Target
Completion Date
P.
N. Completion Date N.
Failure Detection
Requirements
Downtime 30-60 min, 1hr of defects 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/270000 R(t)=78% MTBF=4x 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
Downtime and defects 1-2hrs. 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/180000 R(t)=61% MTBF=2x 6. Low (Manufacturer)Possible Recall 9
Downtime > 4hrs, defects 2-4 hrs 7. High 7. High - 1/90000 R(t)=37% MTBF=Spec7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
Downtime > 8 hrs, defects > 4 hrs 8. Very High 8. High - 1/36000 R(t)=19% MTBF=0.6x 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Affects personnel 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/900 R(t)=5% MTBF=0.3x 9. Very Remote AIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/90 R(t)<1% MTBF=0.1x 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Page 28 of 31
Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition SAE J1739 Aug2002
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Re
Item/Function co Action Results
m

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential Current Machinery me

Detection

Detection
R. nd Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Controls Actions Taken & R.

Class
Potential Failure Mode P. Target P.
Failure Mechanism(s) of -Prevention N. ed Completion Date Completion Date N.
Failure -Detection Ac
Requirements tio
Name, Manner in which machinery could Consequences on other List every List prevention and n(s Name of
De Actions and
Machine fail: bent, cracked, dirty, broken, systems, parts, or potential cause detection activities to ) organization or
sig actual completion
Number, or warped, binding, worn, grounded, people: and/or failure assure machinery n individual and date
Class short cuircuit, open circuit. Breakdowns, degraded mechanism: tool adequacy and prevent or act target completion
output, inadequate drift, incorrect reduce occurrence. io date
Function Assumes: torque, intermittent material specified, ns
1. Incoming parts and materials are operation, excessive over-stressing, to
correct. noise, excessive effort, improper re
2. Machinery will be built, endangers operator, maintenance, du
installed, aadjusted, and maintained increased cycle time, improper ce
to specifications impared performance, specification, se
3. All preceding steps in the loss of production, contamination, ve
sequence of operations have been partial or complete loss excessive heat, rit
executed to specifications. of function, excessive wear. y,
vibration, lack of oc
repeatability, excessive cu
backlash. rre
nc
e
an
d
det
ect
io
n
rat
in
gs.
Se
ve
rit
y
of
9
or
10
0 re 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
 Page 29 of 31

Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
http://www.qimacros.com/lean-six-sigma-articles/fmea/ (Machine FMEA) AIAG Fourth Edition SAE J1739 Aug2002
System: Name/number of system FMEA Number Insert FMEA#
Subsystem Name/number of subsystem Design Page 1 of 1
Component Name/number of component Responsibility: Name Prepared by: who
Model: model years/programs Key Date: 7/15/2008 FMEA Date: 7/15/2008
Core Team: Team members
Re
Item/Function co Action Results
m

Occurrence

Occurrence
Potential Current Machinery me

Detection

Detection
R. nd Responsibility &

Severity

Severity
Potential Effect(s) of Cause(s) / Controls Actions Taken & R.

Class
Potential Failure Mode P. Target P.
Failure Mechanism(s) of -Prevention N. ed Completion Date Completion Date N.
Failure -Detection Ac
Requirements tio
0 n(s 0
0 ) 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Severity of Effect: Occurrence Failure/cycles Detection: Stakeholder Effects of Failure Severity
No Effect 1. None 1. Very low <1/900000 R(t)=98% MTBF=50x 1. Almost CeConsumer Owner Safety Problem 10
within spec limits 2. Very Minor 2. Low - 1/900000 R(t)=95% MTBF=20x 2. Very High (e.g., buyer) Major Owner Dissatisfaction 8
Downtime 0-10 min, no defects 3. Minor 3. Low - 1/540000 R(t)=90% MTBF=10x 3. High Moderate Owner Dissatisfaction 6
Downtime 10-30 min, no defects 4. Very Low 4. Moderate - 1/360000 R(t)=85% MTBF=6x 4. Moderate High Minor Owner Dissatisfaction 4
Downtime 30-60 min, 1hr of defects 5. Low 5. Moderate - 1/270000 R(t)=78% MTBF=4x 5. Moderate Customer Plant Safety Problem 10
Downtime and defects 1-2hrs. 6. Moderate 6. Moderate - 1/180000 R(t)=61% MTBF=2x 6. Low (Manufacturer) Possible Recall 9
Downtime > 4hrs, defects 2-4 hrs 7. High 7. High - 1/90000 R(t)=37% MTBF=Spec 7. Very Low Line Stoppage 8
Downtime > 8 hrs, defects > 4 hrs 8. Very High 8. High - 1/36000 R(t)=19% MTBF=0.6x 8. Remote Warranty Costs 7
Affects personnel 9. Hazardous with warning 9. Very High 1/900 R(t)=5% MTBF=0.3x 9. Very RemoAIAG PPAP 4th Scrap 7
safety/regulations 10. Hazardous w/o warning 10. Very High >1/90 R(t)<1% MTBF=0.1x 10. Almost Impossible Regulatory Penalty 7
Moderate Rework (<25%) 5
Plant Dissatisfaction 4
Minor Rework (<10%) 3
 Data1
0.0% 1375
scratches 96 7.0% Pareto Chart
Dimensional variation 96 14.0%
Dimensional variation 90 20.5% 100.0%
97.8%
Burr 90 27.1% 95.6%
93.5%
Chattering 90 33.6% 91.1% 90.0%
1200 88.8%
Burr 90 40.1% 85.9%
Dents 84 46.3% 82.6%
80.0%
Run out 84 52.4% 78.3%
1000 84 58.5% 73.9%
Chattering 72 63.7% 68.8% 70.0%
Plating Thickness less 70 68.8%
63.7%
Plating Thickness more 70 73.9% 60.0%
800 with test 58.5%
Non compliance
60
certificate 78.3% 52.4%
Rusty material 60 82.6% 50.0%
46.3%
600 45 85.9%
White patches, Black spot, 40.1% 40.0%
40
RPN

scratch & dull surface 88.8%

33.6%
Bar dia. 32 91.1% 30.0%
400
Hardness 32 27.1%
93.5%
30 95.6%
20.5% 20.0%
Rough Finish 30 97.8%
200
Other 14.0% 100.0%
30
Silver streek marks
96 96 9018 90 90 90 84 84 84 10.0%
72 70 70
Stamping position 7.0%12 60 60 45 40 32 32 30 30 30
0 0.0%
es on g
nt
s
es
s st a. he
r
ch rin sl te di
at ir ati e De s h r Ot
sc
r va att ne it Ba
l Ch ck e wte
na hi c
ian ca
is o gT pl rtifi
en ati
n m
Di
m Pl co ce
on
N

Categories
Non compliance with test
60
certificate
Bar dia. 32
Hardness 32
Rusty material 60
Dimensional variation 90
Burr 90
Dents 84
72
Chattering
30
Rough Finish 30
90
Chattering
45
Burr 90
Silver streek marks 18
Stamping position 12
Plating Thickness less 70
Plating Thickness more 70
White patches, Black spot,
40
scratch & dull surface
scratches 96
Dimensional variation 96
84
Run out
84