Failure modes Effects Analysis Technique

Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) A technique used to define, identify, and reduce known or potential failures to an acceptable level. [Defined for this book.]... 

Two distinctly different, yet complementary, perspectives of hazards for the HCF and associated radioactive material storage locations are obtained for the overall hazard analysis of Chapter 3 by using both PHA and failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) techniques. FMEA is a complementary type of evaluation that utilizes a system failure-based form of analysis. Unlike PHA, the first objective of FMEA is to subdivide the facility Into several different (and, to the maximum extent possible, independent) system elements. Failure modes of each system element are then postulated and a structured examination of the consequences of each failure mode follows. However, similar to PHA, FMEA documents preventive and mitigative features (failure mechanisms and compensation) and anticipated accident consequences (failure effects). Appendix 3D contains the FMEA for the HCF. 

The basic tools for quality management are discussed in Chapter 5. Some additional tools such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) are discussed in this chapter. In addition, quality management systems such as ISO 9000, QS 9000, and systems based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) are explained in the first part of the chapter. In the second part of the chapter, techniques to improve quality throughout the entire supply chain are discussed. 

The techniques for quantifying the predicted frequency of failures are just the same as those previously applied to plant availability, where the cost of equipment failure was the prime concern. The tendency in the last few years has been towards a more rigorous application of these techniques (together with third-party verification) in the field of hazard assessment. They include Fault Tree Analysis, Failure Mode Effect Analysis, Common Cause Failure Assessment, and so on. These will be explained in Chapters 5 and 6. 

One hazards analysis technique used to analyze equipment items is Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA). The method examines the ways in which an equipment item can fiul (its failure modes), and examines the effects or consequences of such failures. If the criticaUty of each failure is to be considered, then the method becomes a Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality (FMECA) Analysis. The consequences can be linked to safety, reUability, or environmental performance. 

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). 

Failure Mode Effect (and Criticality) Analysis [FME(C)A] a technique in which all known failure modes of components or features of a system are considered in turn and undesired outcomes are noted a criticality ranking of equipment may also be estimated. 

From those techniques given in Table 1 my personal preference is for failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA). This technique can be applied to both equipment and facilities and can be used to methodically break down the analysis of a complex process into a series of manageable steps. It is a powerful tool for summarizing the important modes of failure, the factors that may cause these failures, and their likely effects. It also incorporates the degree of severity of the consequences, their respective probabilities of occurrence, and their detectability. It must be stressed, however, that the outcome of the risk assessment process should be independent of the tool used and must be able to address all of the risks associated with the instrument that is being assessed. 

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. 

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. 

Since diagnostics are such a critical variable in the calculations, the ability to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the diagnostics is important. This is done using an extended failure modes and effects analysis technique (Ref. 9) and verified with fault injection testing (Ref. 10 and 11). The techniques were refined to include multiple failure modes (Ref. 12) and today are commonly used to evaluate diagnostic capability and failure mode split (Ref. 13). 

FMEDA stands for Failure Modes, Effects and Diagnostic Analysis. It is an extension of FMEA Technique by reviewing if the failure mode(s) are detectable and calculating the associated frequencies. 

The FuRBaR approach was firstly generated in the reliabihty context to facihtate the development of the failure mode and effects analysis technique (Yang et al, 2008). The kernel of the FuRBaR approach is to... 

In 1985, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) initiated a project to produce the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures. This document, prepared by Battelle, includes many system safety analysis tools. Even though frequently identified as hazard and operability (HazOp) programs, the methods being developed by the petrochemical industry to use preliminary hazard analyses, fault trees, failure modes, effects, and criticality analyses, as well as similar techniques to identify, analyze, and control risks systematically, look very much like system safety efforts tailored for the petrochemical industry (Goldwaite 1985). 

The causes of hazards and functional failures are broken down, e.g. via Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). Other typical techniques are the Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and the production of a Reliability Availability Maintainability Modelling and Prediction Report (RAM MPR), containing reliability block diagrams of the system. 

A Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Technique for Process Defined in the Little JL Process Definition Language, D. Wang, J. Pan Nanjing University, China G.S. Avrunin, L.A. Clark University Of Masschsetts, USA. 

The remainder of this chapter will discuss HAZOP and what-if techniques in detail and illustrate specific examples of how they are applied. Chapter 7 will address fault tree analysis and Chapter 8 will discuss failure modes effects and criticality analysis. An excellent reference manual for these techniques is the Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, published by the American Institute for Chemical Engineers CCPS (2008). 

Three nonsafety tools are used in safety analysis failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) human factors analysis and software analysis. Because these techniques are extremely helpful in finding eqnipment failures, human errors, and software mistakes, safety engineers have coupled them to their safety analyses. It is definitely worthwhile to understand how these tools can benefit you. 

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FEMA)—FEMA is a tabulation of facility equipment items, their potential failure modes, and the effects of these failures on the equipment or facility. Failure mode is simply a description of what caused the equipment to fail. The effect is the incident, consequence, or system response to the failure. It is usually depicted in tabular format and expresses failures in an annual estimation. A FEMA is not useful for identifying combinations of failures that can lead to incidents. It may be used in conjunction with other hazard identification techniques such as HAZOP for special investigations such as critical or complex instrumentation systems. There is also a Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), which is a variation of FMEA that includes a quantitative estimate of the significance of the consequence of a failure mode. 

In recent years it has become necessary to develope techniques to ensure the safety of computer embedded systems controlling potentially dangerous processes. Some works published last years showed that reliability and safety improvements could be achieved by using FTA 4,5 and FMEA 6 (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) techniques. This paper attemts to apply and evaluate the FTA method in a software embedded system. Such an application will enable the safety engineer to use one method for the system as a whole without separating the software from the hardware. 

Conventional techniques such as Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Event Tree Analysis (ETA), Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis... 

The purpose of this study is to answer following question can the LARA method be used as a holistic risk management technique in different academic environments and what are the main differences when comparing to the results obtained by industrial risk analysis techniques In order to answer these questions, risk analyses of different procedures were performed using LARA, Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), and HAZOP. The experiments andyzed are standard operations performed at University of Pardubice and at EPFL. The main differences of the results using the different methods will be pointed out and compared. 

A HAZard and OPerability (HAZOP) study is an inductive technique, which is an extended Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Assessment (FMECA). The HAZOP process is based on the principle that a team-approach to hazard analysis will identify mote problems than when individuals working separately combine results. 

Various methods may be used individually or in a combination to carry out Step 1 of the FSA approach. Such typical methods include Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Event Tree Analysis (ETA), Cause-Consequence Analysis (CCA), Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (P MECA), HAZard and OPerability analysis (HA2X)P), Boolean Representation Method (BRM) and Simulation analysis (Henley and Kumamoto (1996), Smith (1992), Villemeur (1992), Wang (1994)). The use of these methods as safety analysis techniques has been reviewed in Chapter 3. 

RCM sometimes referred to as Preventive Maintenance Optimisation (PMO) has become popular in recent years within several industries. The concept has been discussed and elalx>rated by several authors (Worledge (1993), Rausand (1998), Sherwin (1999)). RCM is a procedure for determining maintenance strategies based on reliability techniques and encompasses well-known analysis methods such as Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). RCM procedure takes into account the prime objectives of a maintenance programme ... 

Failure Mode and Ejfect Analysis (FMEA) This is a systematic study of the causes of failures and their effects. All causes or modes of failure are considered for each element of a system, and then all possible outcomes or effects are recorded. This method is usually used in combination with fault tree analysis, a quantitative technique. FMEA is a comphcated procedure, usually carried out by experienced risk analysts. 

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. 

The lists of critical items that were described under Identifying controls in Part 2 Chapter 2, together with Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and Hazard Analysis, are techniques that aid the identification of characteristics crucial to the safe and proper functioning of the product. 

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. 

---