Você está na página 1de 12

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –


6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME
ISSN 0976 – 6979 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6987 (Online) IJIERD
Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), pp. 01-12
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijierd.asp ©IAEME
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.1283 (Calculated by GISI)



J. Arun1, S. Pravin Kumar2, M. Venkatesh3, A.S. Giridharan4

UG Graduate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology,
UG Graduate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology,
UG Graduate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology,
UG Graduate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology,


An FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) is a systematic method of identifying

and preventing product and process problems before they occur. FMEAs are focused on
preventing defects, enhancing safety, and increasing customer satisfaction. Ideally, FMEAs
are conducted in the product design or process development stages, although conducting an
FMEA on existing products and processes can also yield substantial benefits. FMEA is used
in the manufacturing industry to improve production quality and productivity by reducing
potential reliability problems early in the development cycle where it is easier to take actions
to overcome these issues, thereby enhancing reliability through design. It is a method that
evaluates possible failures in the system, design, process or service. In this paper, Failure
mode and Effect Analysis is done on the process of Punching. A series of punching operation
is done on various work pieces and the defects are found. Based on the evidence found, the
ratings are given and risk priority number is given. Based on the RPN, the preventive
measures are given. The FMEA is a proactive approach in solving potential failure modes.
These works serve as a failure prevention guide for those who perform the punching
operation and works towards effective punching operation.

KEYWORDS: Failure Modes, Punching, Risk Priority Number, FMEA Table, Chipping.

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME


In today’s market, the expectancy of the customer towards high quality, reliable and
cost effective products is really high. So this expectancy proves a burden for the
manufactures as they strive to satisfy the customers with defect free, reliable product. So the
manufacturers switch to a newer technique which helps them to achieve the expected
standards. The challenge is to design a quality and reliability product early in the
development cycle. Such challenges are met with latest techniques and strategies
implemented in both the design and product manufacturing. One such technique is Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is used to
identify potential failure modes, determine their effect on the operation of the product, and
identify actions to mitigate the failures [1-2].


FMEA is a tool originated by SAE reliability engineers. It continues to be associated
by many with reliability engineering. It analyzes potential effects caused by system elements
ceasing to behave as intended. The purpose of FMEA is to identify possible failure modes of
the system, evaluate their influences on system behavior and propose proper countermeasures
to suppress these effects. FMEA enhances further improvisation of both the design and
manufacturing processes in the future as it serves as a record of the current process in
formations [4-5]. FMEA is an engineering technique used to identify, prioritize and alleviate
potential problems from the system, design, or process before the problems are actualized
(According to Omdahl, 1988). What does the term “Failure Modes” imply? Lots of
definitions for this term can be obtained. According to the Automotive Industry Action Group
(AIAG), a failure mode is “the way in which a product or process could fail to perform its
desired function” (AIAG, 1995). Some sources define “failure mode” as a description of an
undesired cause-effect chain of events (MIL-STD-1629A, 1994). Others define “failure
mode” as a link in the cause-effect chain [3] (Stamatis, 1995: Humphries, 1994). To conclude
with we consider the term failure mode as any errors or defects in a process, design, or item,
especially those that affect the customer, and can be potential or actual. The term “Effect
Analysis” also invites various definitions. The effect analysis is “the analysis of the outcome
of the failure on the system, on the process and the service” (Stamatis, 1995: Humphries,
1994) [2-5]. To put it simply Effects analysis refers to studying the consequences of those

FMEA is a tool that allows us to:

• Discover potential failures in a system, product or process

• Prioritize actions that decrease risk of failure
• Evaluate the system/design/processes from a new vantage point
• Guide design evaluation and improvement
• Troubleshoot and monitor the performance of systems


Punching process is a stamping or pressing type of metal removal process in which
the product is formed by pressing the work between die [7]. The metal removal is by shearing
force between the work and the die. Various components contribute to the accuracy,

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

reliability of the product. When these components are defective, this leads to the failure of the
product. Some of the failures in the punching process are like Punch chipping, Slug jamming,
Galling etc. [7]. These result in unfavorable consequences like failure of the system or
production of inaccurate products. Hence it is essential to conduct a FMEA in this process so
that the failure is avoided totally or reduced. Prior notification of these failures can prevent
them by following control measures.


The purpose of performing an FMEA is to analyze the product's design characteristics

relative to the planned manufacturing process and experiment design to ensure that the
resultant product meets customer needs and expectations. When potential failure modes are
identified, corrective action can be taken to eliminate them or to continually reduce a
potential occurrence [3-4]. In FMEA, failures are prioritized according to how serious their
consequences are, how frequently they occur and how easily they can be detected. Ideally,
FMEA begins during the earliest conceptual stages of design and continues throughout the
life of the product or service. Results can be used to identify high-vulnerability elements and
to guide resource deployment for best benefit. An FMEA can be done any time in the system
lifetime, from initial design onwards. The various steps in Process Failure and Effect
Analysis are as follows

• Reviewing the process

• List the potential effects and modes of failure
• Assign a severity rating
• Assign an occurrence rating
• Assign a detection rating
• Calculate the risk priority number (RPN) for each mode of failure
• Take action to eliminate or reduce the high-risk failure modes
• Calculate the resulting RPN as the failure modes are reduced or
eliminated [4].


The blueprint (or engineering drawing) of the product and a detailed flowchart of the
operation are reviewed. The process parameters of the conducted tests are as follows:

Capacity : 60 Ton
Maximum stroke : 6"
Bed Area : 42" X 32"
Speed : 40 Strokes per minute
Floor to Bed : 33"
Dimensions : 10'10" High, 8'6" RL, 6' FB
Weight : 15,000 Lbs
Tool used : Tungsten steel
Work piece material : Silicon steel
Several trials are to be conducted with the above mentioned parameters.

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

Fig 1: High Speed Press Fig 2: Defective product from punching process

Burr formation

Fig 3: Burr formation in the punched product


Based on the trials conducted the failures are listed. In this, previously recorded
failures are also added. The effects of these failure modes are also tabulated. These failure
modes and their effects are charted separately for the sake of calculating and assigning the
ratings and risk priority numbers. With the failure modes listed on the FMEA Worksheet,
each failure mode is reviewed and the potential effects of the failure should it occur are
identified. For some of the failure modes, there is only one effect, while for other modes there
may be several effects. This step must be thorough because this information will feed into the
assignment of risk rankings for each of the failures. It is helpful to think of this step as an if-
then process: If the failure occurs, then what are the consequences [4].


The severity ranking is an estimation of how serious the effects would be if a given
failure did occur. In some cases it is clear, because of past experience, how serious the
problem would be. In other cases, it is necessary to estimate the severity based on the

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

knowledge of the process. There could be other factors to consider (contributors to the overall
severity of the event being analyzed) [4]. Calculating the severity levels provides for a
classification ranking that encompasses safety, production continuity, scrap loss, etc. user.
Each effect is given a severity number (S) from 1 (no danger) to 10 (critical). A failure mode
with severity number of 10 results in severe dissatisfaction of the customer and may even
result in the physical injury due to the failure. Severity ratings in the range of 4-6 result in
mild dissatisfaction of the customer whereas those in the range of 1-3 are not so severe and
may even be not detected [2-6]. Table 1gives the guidelines based on which severity ratings
were given.

Table 1: Severity Ratings

Severity Rating Description
Failure is of such minor nature that the customer (internal or
external) will probably not detect the failure.
Failure will result in slight customer annoyance
3-5 and/or slight deterioration of part or system performance
Failure will result in customer dissatisfaction and annoyance
6-7 and/or deterioration of part or system performance.
Failure will result in high degree of customer
dissatisfaction and cause non-functionality of system
Failure will result in major customer dissatisfaction and cause
10 non-system operation or non-compliance with regulations


Occurrence ratings denote how often such failures occur. In this step it is necessary to
look at the number of times a failure occurs. This can be done by looking at similar products
or processes and the failure modes that have been documented [4]. A failure mode is given an
occurrence ranking (O), again 1–10. If a failure is inevitable or occurs often, then it is given a
rating in the range of 8-10. Those with mild occurrences are given 4-6 whereas those with
low or eliminated failure have 1-3 occurrence ratings [2-6]. Table 2 gives the occurrence
ratings based on which FMEA table is designed in this paper.

Table 2 Occurrence Ratings

Occurrence Rating Meaning

1 Failure eliminated or no know occurrence

2,3 Low or very few

4,5,6 Moderate or few occasional

7,8 High or repeated failure occurrence

9,10 Very high rate of failure or inevitable failures

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME


This section provides a ranking based on an assessment of the probability that the
failure mode will be detected given the controls that are in place. The proper inspection
methods need to be chosen. The probability of detection is ranked in reverse order. For
example, a "1" indicates a very high probability that a failure would be detected before
reaching the customer; a "10" indicates a low – zero probability that the failure will not be
detected [2-6]. Table 3 shows the guidelines based on which the detection ratings of a product
are given.

Table 3: Detection Rating

Detection Rating Description
1 Very certain that the failure will be detected
2-4 High probability that the defect will be detected
5-6 Moderate probability that the failure will be detected
7-8 Low probability that the failure will be detected
9 Very Low probability that the defect will be detected.
10 Fault will be passed to customer undetected


The risk priority number (RPN) is simply calculated by multiplying the severity
ranking times the occurrence ranking times the detection ranking for each item.

Risk Priority Number = Severity × Occurrence × Detection

The total risk priority number should be calculated by adding all of the risk priority
numbers. This number alone is meaningless because each FMEA has a different number of
failure modes and effects. The small RPN is always better than the high RPN. The RPN can
be computed for the entire process and/or for the design process only. Once it is calculated, it
is easy to determine the areas of greatest concern. There could be less severe failures, but
which occur more often and are less detectable. These actions can include specific inspection,
testing or quality procedures, redesign (such as selection of new components), adding more
redundancy and limiting environmental stresses or operating range. Once the actions have
been implemented in the design/process, the new RPN should be checked, to confirm the
improvements [1,2,6].

Table 4: FMEA Table for Punching Process

S. Severity Occurrence Detection
Problem Effects Causes Solutions RPN
No Rating Rating Rating
1 Punch Deformation 7 6 8 High impact Change 336
Chipping & or punch
Point compressive materials and
Breakage failure diameter
Leading to 5 6 Misalignment 210
downtime resulting in Check overall
lateral forces die alignment
Additional 3 3 Part material Use a retainer 63
die damage movement or punch-

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

5 1 Review die, 35
Poor material press, &
control feeder setup
3 6 Excessive Reduce 126
stripping punch-to-die
force entry
coatings to
add lubricity

2 2 Punch point 28
hardness too Verify
low hardness
1 1 Improper 7
punch Change
material punch
selected material
8 2 Sharpening Use Coolant, 112
damage correct speeds
and feeds for
7 1 Remove 49
Regrind burr regrind burr
1 1 Increase 7
Tight die material
clearance Use Coatings
and surface
6 2 Increase 84
Sharp corners clearance in
on shaped the corners of
punches die button
6 4 Use shear 168
Flat punch angles and
face use edge
3 4 Improper Triple 84
heat tempered for
treatment high-speed
and follow
the guided
4 3 Cut-off 84
Improper operation &
punch large point
stagger first to enter
7 2 Improper 98
finish on
punch point Ensure there
and/or punch are no harsh
face grinding

2 Excessive 7 7 2 Incorrect Restore 98

burr Stress clearance correct
concentration clearance
at edges

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

Decreases 5 1 35
Sharpen or
resistance to Worn tools
replace tools
Shortens 4 1 Misalign Check 28
fatigue life components alignment

3 Slug 8 1 1 8
Jamming Punch Tight die Increase die
breakage clearance clearance
6 1 Excessive Change relief 48
Punch point land length from counter
deformation bore to taper
Land length
should not
exceed four
times material

5 3 Taper in the Verify there 120

land of the is no reverse
die button taper in the
land of the
die button
6 2 Inadequate 96
taper relief in Increase per
die button side taper
9 2 Worn die Sharpen, 144
button replace,
and/or change
die button
9 3 Worn or 216
chipped Sharpen or
punch replace punch
5 1 Rough land Use die 40
in die button buttons with
smooth wire
cut, or ground
3 2 Slug tipping Check 48
both sides of
part material
7 1 Obstruction Examine slug 56
in slug relief path
hole Consider
increasing the
size of the
relief hole in
lower plate

4 Slug Punch point 6 9 1 Bell mouth Increase die 54

Pulling deformation wear in die clearance
Excessive button
wear on
punch and Check
die alignment
Change die
Surface material

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

Broken 8 2 Punch entry Use slug 96

punches and too deep control
dies system
Reduce punch
3 3 Punch entry 54
not deep Increase
enough punch entry
9 1 Excessive die Reduce die 54
clearance clearance
3 2 Slug not held Use slug 36
in the land control
Use vacuum
slug sucker
Blow air
center hole in
Use negative
taper in land
3 1 Sticky Check 18
lubricants lubrication
3 4 Not enough Increase taper 72
relief on die relief or use
counter bore

5 Punch Reduced die 7 9 1 Tight die Increase die 63

Wear performance clearance clearance
and/or Reduced Change
Galling punch and punch
die life materials
Requires 6 2 Punch entry 84
heat too deep
treatment of Reduce punch
parts entry
High stress 3 2 Misalignment Check die & 42
concentration press
in parts alignment
4 2 Regrind burr Remove 56
6 1 Improper Use flood 42
sharpening of coolant, and
punch correct
wheel speed
& feed for
steel type
3 1 Improper Change 21
punch punch
material materials
5 1 Sharp corners Increase 35
on shaped clearance in
punches the corners of
the die button
4 1 Punch Consider 28
surface too punch finish
rough improvements

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

5 2 Lack of 70
on part
incorrect Check
lubrication lubrication

6 Punch Head Increase in 10 5 2 Punch Verify head 100

Breakage punch-to-die pumping thickness is
clearance properly fit in
the retainer
Punch 6 3 Insufficient Chamfer 180
breakage chamfer in retainer to
retainer clear head
fillet on
Excessive 4 7 Backing plate Draw back 280
shear on too hard backing plate
punches and to reduce
die hardness—
RC 40-50
Deflection of 3 6 Head is too Draw back 180
punch head hard head of punch
to lower RC
5 4 High impact Increase head 200
or high diameter and
compressive thickness
load on head Increase

7 Punch does Increased 10 9 1 Incorrect Restore 90

not extract delay clearance correct
3 2 Lack of Use proper 60
lubrication lubrication or
5 1 Tough Revise 50
materials clearance
6 1 Ineffectual Replace with 60
extraction a spring or
system reloaded

8 Work part Imprecise 10 10 1 Incorrect Restore 100

deformation components clearance correct
2 2 Lack of Use proper 40
lubrication lubrication or
6 1 Holes too Reprogram 60
close in alternate
sequence punching

9 Wear Reduced tool 6 6 8 Speed too Slow down, 288

life fast use more

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

3 7 Hard material Use higher 126

grade tool
material, add
Dimensional 4 8 Improper Increase feed 192
inaccuracies feed rate (too rate
4 5 Improper Change to 120
punch-die correct
angle punching
4 5 Improper 120
clearance Give proper
angle clearance

10 Reduced High cost 4 7 6 Too much 168

tool life shearing Select proper
force during tool materials
5 6 Tough work Select 120
material premium tool
4 6 Frequent Resharpen the 96
resharpening tool
of tool periodically


From the table 4, which shows FMEA table for punching process, it is observed that
the punch chipping and point breakage due to the high impact or compressive force has the
highest risk priority number. This can be minimized by the proper selection of punch-die
materials and by maintaining the correct clearance between punch and die. The burr and slug
formations also have detrimental effect on the overall quality of the final product. These
undesirable developments can be curtailed by varying the feed rates and speed of the
machine. To reduce the breakage of tool and burr formation due to excessive feed rate and
high cutting speeds, we have to perform the process in rated speed and acceptable feed rates.
In order to produce the punched products without any deformations or distortions, better tool
and work holding devices are to be used. To reduce metal chipping, initial speed has to be
minimum and proper cutting speeds should be employed. The tool life can be increased by
proper lubrication, minimizing the wear and other parameter perfection has to be achieved.


Thus the high speed punching process in motor manufacturing section has been
analyzed and the expected failure modes have been noted. From the results of the critical
analysis made on the punching process, the failure modes with greater risk priority number
has been selected. The causes, effects and possible alternate solutions are given along with
the ratings and priorities of action that decrease risk failure. The risk priority numbers are
specified which indicates the necessity of care for producing defect-free punching process
and its products. Thus this process analysis will serve as a helpful tool to detect the failure

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 –
6979(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6987(Online) Volume 4, Issue 3, September - December (2013), © IAEME

modes occurring in the punching process and also assures in the effective functioning of the
This study provides a documented method for selecting a design with a high
probability of successful operation and safety. As a result of this approach, the system
development cost and time, the possibility of occurrence of same kind of failure in future are
reduced along with improved quality, reliability and safety of process/product. Consequently,
the productivity of the product is also increased. This approach can be well suitably applied
to consumer products like automotives, home appliances, etc., and other fields such as
manufacturing, aerospace, instrumentation, medical, chemical processing, etc.


1. V Janarthanan, D Rajenthira Kumar. Root Cause analysis & process failure mode and
effect analysis of TIG Welding on SS 3041 material (Proceeding of NC MISAA 2013,
copyright 2013 PSGCT)
2. Aravind.P, Rooban Babu.R, Arun Dhakshinamoorthy, Venkat Prabhu.N,
Subramanian.SP¸ An integrated approach for prediction of failures by process failure
mode and effect analysis (PFMEA) in MIG Welding-a predictive analysis (ISBN-978-
3. D.H.Stamatis. Failure mode and effect analysis : FMEA from theory to execution
(Book 2nd Edition (1995))
4. Robin E. McDermott, Raymond J. Mikulak, Michael R. Beauregard. The basics of
FMEA-Productivity press (1996)
5. Aravind.P, Subramanian.SP, SriVishnu.G, Vignesh.P. Process failure mode and effect
analysis on TIG Welding process - a criticality study (ISSN-223-1963)
6. “Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)”- Copyright © 2004 Institute for
Healthcare Improvement.
7. Jim Szumera, James. A. Szumera. The Metal Stamping Process (Industrial Press Inc,
8. A.Mariajayaprakash, Dr.T. SenthilVelan and K.P.Vivekananthan, “Optimisation of
Shock Absorber Parameters using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and Taguchi
Method”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering & Technology (IJMET),
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 328 - 345, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6340, ISSN Online: 0976 –
9. Pravin Kumar .S, Venkatakrishnan.R and Vignesh Babu.S, “Process Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis on End Milling Process- A Critical Study”, International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering & Technology (IJMET), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013,
pp. 191 - 199, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6340, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6359.