Proceeding, International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management

ISSN: 1978-774X

IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST POTENTIAL DEFECTS AND CAUSED BY

USING METODE FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS (FMEA)
IN PT X

I Wayan Sukania1, Wilson Kosasih2, Willy Tambrin3

Tarumanagara University
Industrial Engineering Program
Jl. Let. Jend. S. Parman No. 1 Jakarta 11440
Email: iwayansukania@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This paper presents application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for production
plant of sheeter knives. FMEA is quality and realibility tool, which requires identifying failure
modes of a specific product or process. In conducting FMEA, three parameters (severity,
occurrence and detection) are utilized to describe each failure mode by rating on a 1-10
scale. Severity rating is the seriousness of the effect of a failure to the next component,
subsystem, system, or customer. Occurrence rating is the likelihood or frequency of the
failure occurring. Detection rating is the inability to detect the failure. Criticality assessment
of FMEA is evaluated by developing a risk priority number (RPN). RPN is the product of the
severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D) ratings. By ranking the priorities for
corrective action according to the respective effects of the failures, the chance of the failure
can be reduced or eliminated.

Keywords: Defect, RPN, FMEA

1. INTRODUCTION 2.1 On Line Quality Control

The quality of a product is one of the key The quality control activities conducted
success for the industry to keep loyalty of during the manufacturing process. One of
consumers, size market share with similar the methode or tool is Statistical Process
industry. PT X is one of industry that Control (SPC).
specializes in cutting knife industry. In fact
there are still defects or failures occur during 2.2 Off-Line Quality Control
the production process. One of them is the
In this methode quality control is done
distance between the holes on the cutting
before the production process. Product
knives with the other holes are not precise.
defects and quality problems can be
So it is verry important for the company to
resolved before the production process.
find caused and minimize of that defect.
Generaly there are 4 steps in quality control,
namely:
2. BASIC THEORY
A quality control are the activities and 1) Setting the standards. Standards of the
management techniques to measure the raw materials, cost, performance,
quality characteristics of the output (goods / security and reliability required for these
services), then compare the results with the products.
desired output specifications and take 2) Assessing suitability. Compare the
appropriate action if found the difference suitability of the products manufactured
between actual performance standard. To or services to the standards that have
achieve good quality, quality control is verry been made or determined.
importance. Quality control can be done 3) Corrective action if necessary. The
through two approaches, namely: problem correction and find the factors
caused like marketing, design,
engineering, production, and
maintenance
Identification of the most potential defects

I Wayan Sukania A102

Proceeding, International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management
Inna Kuta Beach Hotel, Bali December 10th-11th ,2009 ISSN: 1978-774X

4) Planned improvements. This step to These scores will be used to produce an

develop a continuous improvement. output value of RPN (Risk Priority Number)
by the formula:
2.3 Cause and Effect Diagram
RPN = Severity x Occurance x Detection (1)
Cause and effect diagram developed by
1 ≤ RPN ≤ 1000
Kaoru Ishikawa. Cause and effect diagram
also called fishbone diagrams (fish bone) or
the Ishikawa diagram. Cause and effect
diagram is used to identify the causes of an
effect, so it can be determined the actions to
make improvements. The effect is placed on
the right in the "fish head", and contributing
factors to the left at the "fish bone". Major
causes are further subdivided into several
minor causes.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research begin with field research so we
know the actual problems and conditions of
that company. Several data will be
examined, including an introduction to the
use of production machines, the production
process, the material used and production
data for three months, January, February
and March 2009.

FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) is

used to determine the mode used defects
that often arise in a production process.
Causes and effects wil be score by
multiplying the three inputs, namely severity,
occurrence and detection. These scores will
be used for priority handling. Input FMEA:

1) Severity
Severity is an assessment of the
seriousness of the effects. The failure that
arise will be assessed how much the level of
seriousness. Severity values are described
only at the level of seriousness of the effect
itself.

2) Occurance
Occurance is used to measure how often a
result or effect caused by certain causes.

3) Detection
Detection is assumed as failures that have
occurred and how likely detection methods
can detect the failure.

A103 Identification of the most potential defects

I Wayan Sukania
Proceeding, International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management

ISSN: 1978-774X

Table 1. Severity ratings on the FMEA

Severity (S)
Rating Definition Description
Hazardous without warning Very high severity, which can endanger consumers, and not in accordance with
10
government regulations.
Dangerous and there are Very high severity, which can endanger consumers, and not in accordance with
9
warnings government regulations with a warning.
Very high Defective products and not suitable to be used and disturbe production line and
8
caused 100% of scrap
High Defective products cause little disturbe production lines, most of the material be
7 scrap, the rest can be sorted (if it is good / could be rework). Failure causes the
customer not satisfied.
Medium A small percentage to be a scrap, the rest not need to sort (already good) and the
6 customer is not satisfied with the product.
Low The production line have a little disturbe. 100% product can rework. The product
5
certainly be returned by consumers.
Very Low Most product can be rework and the rest was good. The products may be returned
4
by consumers.
Small Only a small portion can be rework and the rest was good. 50 % customer
3
complaints
2 Very small Complaint only come from the certain customers
1 No There was no effect

Table 2. Rank Probability of Failure/Occurrence

Occurrence (O)
Rating Definition Description
Very high: failure can,t be More than one event per day or more than three events in 10 events
10
avoided
9 One occurrence every three or four days or more than three events in 10 events
8 High: repeated failures. One event per week or five events in 100 events
7 One event each month or one-time events in 100 events
Moderate: The failure is to One occurrence every three months or three events in 1000 events
6
one-time events
5 One occurrence every six months to one year or one event in 10,000 events
4 One event every year or six events in 100,000 events
3 Low: relatively One occurrence every one to three years or
small failure Six occurrences in the ten million events
2 One occurrence every three to five years or two events in one billion events
1 None One incident more than five years or at least two events in one billion events

Table 3. Rank Detection

Detection (D)
Rating Definition Description
10 Absolutely uncertainly There are no controls to detect the failure mode.
9 Very remote There are very few controls to detect the failure mode.
8 Remote There are few controls to detect the failure mode.
7 Very low There is very low for control to detect failure mode.
6 Low Have low control to detect the failure mode.
5 Moderate There are controls to detect the failure mode.
4 Moderately high There are high control to detect the failure mode.
3 High High control is to detect the failure mode.
2 Very high There are very clear control for detect the failure mode.
1 Almost certain
The tool control almost certainly be able to detect the failure mode

Identification of the most potential defects

I Wayan Sukania A104

Proceeding, International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management
Inna Kuta Beach Hotel, Bali December 10th-11th ,2009 ISSN: 1978-774X

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 4. FMEA Overall Process

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

Item Pulp and Paper Cutting tipe Sheeter knives
Model Number/Year
Core Team
Proces
Potential Potential
s Potential Failure Current Process RP
No Effect(s) of S Cause(s)/Mechanism O D
Functio Modes Controls N
Failure (s) of Failure
n
Flow of the chips Lack of fluid collant due to
Directing the work
are not working negligence of the 5 3 120
by supervisors
properly operator
There are no Directing the work
Making A negligent operator does not
ispection of the The diameter 3 by supervisors 5 120
holes work with procedures
drill of the hole is
with
1 not in 8 Drill vibrations in the
Milling
Drill shifted accordance workpiece due to the not
Machin Pick up any value of
from the center with the size appropriate 8 8 512
e (RPN)
of drilling point of drilling methods

Changes in the Change

Blunt drill 5 2 80
geometry of the drill new drill
Placement
position of the Less accurate at the time of Sanctions warning
6 3 126
workpiece is not work / A negligent operator to the operator
Making The distance
proper
holes between the
Use hole template
with Limited manual hole center are Difficulties in measuring the
2 7 8 during 2 112
Milling machine not in accor- distance between holes
drilling process
Machin dance with the
Distance
e size Use hole template
measurements of Using markers and
7 during 2 98
the hole center are measuring ruler
drilling process
not precise.
Workpiece
Directing the
placement
Failure operator 3 work to the 2 48
positions are not
operator
appropriate
Harden Out of fuel Cracks in the Failure operator 2 Directing the work 3 48
3 8
ning Time and knife cut
temperature There are no Application of work
of combustion standardized 3 standardization 2 48
are not of employment
appropriate
Different Thickness is
Handling method not in There are no
Rework done
of accordance standardization 8 3 120
Grindin on the grinding
machines every with the of cutting speeds
4 g 5
shift specified size.
Surface
Knife thick-ness Rework
measu-rement Miss loking at the figure 6 on the grinding 2 60
error proccess
Wear The temperature appear on Setting the tem-
on the grinding monitor is not in accordance 8 perature on 5 160
tools and the with the actual situation the computer
The sharpness
workpiece
of the cutting
through friction.
knife are not in Rework on the
Milling Different handling Work is still based on
5 accordance 4 8 degree milling 2 64
Degree method of operator experience
with the machine
machines every
specified
shift work
Operators did not record Rework on the
Bad grinding
the age of disposable 6 degree milling 2 48
tools
millstone machine
Measurement The length of Miss loking at the figure Rework on the
8 1 40
error the knife is not plotter machine
6 Plotter 5
Operators are in accordance Rework on the
with the size Hot room, no air filter 2 2 20
not comfortable plotter machine

A105 Identification of the most potential defects

I Wayan Sukania
Proceeding, International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management

ISSN: 1978-774X

Table 5. Conventional FMEA Rank

Potential
Process Potential Failure
No Effect(s) of S O D RPN Categories Rank
Function Modes
Failure
Flow of the chips
are not
The 5 5 200 L-M 2
Making working properly
diameter
holes There are no
of the hole
1 with inspection of 8 3 5 120 L 3
is not in
Milling the drilling
accordance
Machine proccess 8 8 512 H 1
with the size
Shift drill
Blunt drill 5 2 80 VL-L 4
Placement
position of the
6 3 126 L 3
workpiece is not The distance
Making
proper between the
holes
Limited manual hole center are
2 with 7 8 2 112 L 3
machine not in
Milling
Measurements accordance
Machine
distance of the with the size
7 2 98 VL-L 4
holes are not
precise
Workpiece
placement
positions 3 2 48 VL 5
are not
Harden Cracks in the
3 appropriate 8
ning knife cut
Out of fuel 2 3 48 VL 5
Time and
Temperature 3 2 48 VL 5
of combustion
Different handling
method of Thickness is
8 3 120 L 3
machines every not in
Grinding
4 Shift work accordance 5
Surface
Knife thickness with the
measurement specified size 6 2 60 VL-L 4
error
Wear
on the grinding
tools and the 8 5 160 L-M 2
workpiece The sharpness
through friction of the cutting
Different handling knife is not in
Milling
5 method of accordance 4
Degree 8 2 64 VL-L 4
machines every with the
Shift work specified size
Grinding tools are
not
6 2 48 VL 5
suitable to be
used
Measurement The length of
8 1 40 VL 5
Error the knife is not
6 Plotter 5
Operators are in accordance
2 2 20 VL 5
not comfortable with the size

Identification of the most potential defects

I Wayan Sukania A106

Proceeding, International Seminar on Industrial Engineering and Management
Inna Kuta Beach Hotel, Bali December 10th-11th ,2009 ISSN: 1978-774X

Table 6. Rank categories 4. CONCLUSION

From the analisys before it can be
Class concluded:
Rank Kategori 1. Defect modes of the most influential is
Interval
9 VL Jan-49 the shifts of drill tools on the milling
8 VL-L 50-99 machine resulting the size of the hole
7 L 100-149 diameter not in accordance with the
6 L-M 150-249 specified size.
2. Defect mode can be seen on RPN
5 M 250-349
values from highest to lowest or by
4 M-H 350-449
looking at the rank that has been
3 H 450-599 matched to existing categories.
2 H-VH 600-799 3. Hole diameter defect due to the not
1 VH 800-1000 appropriate drilling methods.

Table 5 show that the results of the output 5. REFERENCES

value has a different value. The highest
score occure on the hole diameter defect
which is caused by shift moving of drill in the
process of making holes on milling machines
with score severity, occurrence, and
detection, respectively 8, 8, 8 which
produces the output value of RPN of 512.
This is high category, so in this case the high
category is ranked first.
(a) Besterfield, Dale H, Carol, Mary, and
Glen H (1995). Total Quality
Management. Inc.Englewood Prentice
Hall, Cliffs.New Jersey.
(b) Braglia, Marcello and Marco Frosolini.
(2003). Critically Fuzzy Assessment
Model for Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis.The International Journal of
Quality and Realibilty
Management.Volume 20 (4) :503-524
(c) Fengenbaum, Armand V. (1986). Total
Quality Control. 3nd-Graw edition.Mc
Hill.Singapore.

A107 Identification of the most potential defects

I Wayan Sukania