Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. The system design activity usually emphasizes the attainment of performance objectives in a timely and cost-efficient fashion. The failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) procedure considers the system from a failure point of view to determine how the product might fail. The terms design failure mode and effects analysis (DFMEA) and failure mode effects and criticaUty analysis (EMECA) also are used. This EMEA technique is used to identify and eliminate potential failure modes early in the design cycle, and its success is well documented (3,4). 

Use Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (Technique 40) to determine what is likely to go wrong with your innovation, as well as the extent of the damage you can expect if it does. 

Fig. 13 Design failure mode and effects analysis for alcohol purification. (View this art in color at www.dekker.com.)...

Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis double layer capacitor depth-of-discharge dynamic stress test... 

In system safety, parts and components are of prime interest because it is often their unique failure modes, within unique system architectures, that provide the IM for certain hazards within a system design. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and FTA typically deal with the system at the part or component level in order to determine the risk presented by a particular hazard. When an FTA is performed to determine the causal factors for a particular hazard or UE, the FTA is generally conducted to the part level. Failure rates can be obtained for parts, which can be used in the FTA to generate a quantitative result. 

How do you then design an effective system There are several techniques you can use. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), and Theory of Constraints (TOC) are but three. The FMEA is a bottom-up approach, the FTA a top-down approach, and TOC a holistic approach. 

There is one technique widely used in the automotive industry for detecting and analyzing potential nonconformities Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). There are Design FMEAs and Process FMEAs. The technique is the same - it is only the focus that is different. As clause 4.14 addresses potential nonconformities, the subject of FMEAs is treated in Part 2 Chapter 14. 

Several techniques have evolved to identify potential sources of failure in designs and process. These techniques serve to prevent nonconformity and hence are preventive action measures. One such technique is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). 

A failure modes and effects analysis is a systematic analytical technique for identifying potential failures in a design or a process, assessing the probability of occurrence and likely effect, and determining the measures needed to eliminate, contain, or control the effects. Action taken on the basis of an FMEA will improve safety, performance, reliability, maintainability and reduce costs. The outputs are essential to balanced and effective quality plans for both development and production as it will help focus the controls upon those products, processes, and characteristics that are at risk. It is not the intention here to give a full appreciation of the FMEA technique and readers are advised to consult other texts. 

This paper describes a reliability analysis of dual - diaphragm pumps in uranium solution service. It is part of the output from a failure modes and effects analysis of the design for a system to be installed at the Oak Ridge Y-12 plant. The study involved collecting data on pumps with Viton and Teflon diaphragms at 10 gpm and 15 gpm. 

Preliminary hazard analyses (PHAs) have been conducted for the SILVER II process at various stages of design and have served as building blocks for the EDP PHA effort (AEA, 2001a). These PHAs use the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) technique in accordance with the following regulations and standards ... 

The Council encourages industry to employ failure mode and effects analysis in its design of devices, and the packaging and labeling of medications and related devices. 

The process hazards analysis is conducted by an experienced, multidisciplinary team that examines the process design, plant equipment, operating procedures, and so on, using techniques such as hazard and operability studies (HAZOP), failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), and others. The process hazards analysis recommends appropriate measures to reduce the risk, including (but not limited to) the safety interlocks to be implemented in the safety interlock system. 

Design Process design checks Unit processes Unit operations Plant equipments Pressure systems Instrument systems Hazard and operability studies (fine scale) Failure modes and effects analysis Fault trees and event trees Hazard analysis Reliability assessments... 

Identification can be as simple as asking what-iP questions at design reviews. It can also involve the use of a checklist outlining the normal process hazards associated with a specific piece of equipment. The major weakness of the latter approach is that items not on the checklist can easily be overlooked. The more formalized hazard-assessment techniques include, but are not limited to, hazard and operability study (HAZOP), fault-tree analysis (FTA), failure mode-and-effect analysis (FMEA), safety indexes, and safety audits. 

HAZOP and What-If reviews are two of the most common petrochemical industry qualitative methods used to conduct process hazard analyses. Up to 80% of a company s process hazard analyses may consist of HAZOP and What-If reviews with the remainder 20% from Checklist, Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, etc. An experienced review team can use the analysis to generate possible deviations from design, construction, modification, and operating intent that define potential consequences. These consequences can then be prevented or mitigated by the application of the appropriate safeguards. 

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is one tool that can be applied to challenge the design against the stated performance criteria and further to provide the foundation of the Asset Management Strategy to ensure that system performance is maintained (see Figure 31.4). The FMEA process defines ... 

Designed experiments are a key tool for performing this specification translation process and helping to establish such controls. However, designed experiments are not the only tool required to accomplish this task. We will also explore other tools, such as tolerance analysis, robust design, capability studies, and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), to see how to combine these tools into an effective system for vahdation. 

RFQ Request For Quotation DVP R Design Verification Plan and Report ° PV Process Validation EDI Electronic Data Interchange ° PFMEA Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis SPC Statistical Process Control MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet DVP Design Verification Plan CFMEA Concept Failure Modes and Effect Analysis DFMEA Design Failure Modes ans Effect Analysis. 

There are various types of analyses that are used for a process hazard analysis (PHA) of the equipment design and test procedures, including the effects of human error. Qualitative methods include checklists, What-If, and Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) studies. Quantitative methods include Event Trees, Fault Trees, and Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA). All of these methods require rigorous documentation and implementation to ensure that all potential safety problems are identified and the associated recommendations are addressed. The review should also consider what personal protective equipment (PPE) is needed to protect workers from injuries. 

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) This will document a review of the effects of faiiure of the component parts of the system. This review is mainiy aimed at assessing the system hardware, interfaces and environment. This review shouid be performed on two lev-eis The first ievei reviews the possibie failure modes of each individual system and the second level assesses the possible failure modes of the combined system. The overall objective of the FMEA is to identify the potentiai weak points and then to identify how these weak points may be designed out of the system. This may be achieved by instaiiing redundancy, redesigning parts of the system, recommending procedural controls and so on. The results of this review should be documented as a FMEA Review Report or as part of a DQ Report. 

Before we can define the mission for any particular test or inspection system we must be able to specify customer needs. While a detailed framework for designing inspection systems is given in Section 7, we must consider now how to define such needs. One way is to apply a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to the product and design a test and evaluation system to cover each of the potential failure modes. But this technique does not make the customer an explicit part of the design process, whereas we have seen earlier (Section 1) that direct customer input is increasingly needed in more customized products. A preferable technique is to begin with customer function and quality requirements as the basis for a list of product attributes that form the basis of test and inspection. In attributes inspection (Section 2.1), this list is often a defect list or fault list defining the discrete defects that the inspection system must ensure the customer never experiences. 

The design for inspectability procedure noted above starts from the assumption that a list of defects to be detected can be developed at the product design stage, perhaps from a failure modes and effect analysis (FMEA) of the product s components. These defects (D, D, represents the challenges to the test and inspection system because all must be detected, and detected at the appropriate stage of manufacture. Only three components of the inspection system can be changed, or changes can affect ... 

---