Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management (품질경영학회지)

Korean Society for Quality Management (한국품질경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Common RPN Model of Failure Mode Evaluation Analysis(FMEA) and its Application for Risk Factor Evaluation

위험 요인 평가를 위한 FMEA의 일반 RPN 모형과 활용에 관한 연구

  • Cho, Seong Woo (Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Ajou University) ;
  • Lee, Han Sol (Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Ajou University) ;
  • Kang, Juyoung (Department of e-Business, School of Business, Ajou University)
  • 조성우 (아주대학교 경영대학 경영학과) ;
  • 이한솔 (아주대학교 경영대학 경영학과) ;
  • 강주영 (아주대학교 경영대학 e-비즈니스학과)
  • Received : 2022.02.08
  • Accepted : 2022.03.02
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is a widely utilized technique to measure product reliability by identifying potential failure modes. Even though FMEA techniques have been studied, the form of Risk Priority Number (RPN) used to evaluate risk priority in FMEA is still questionable because of its shortcomings. In this study, we suggest common RPN(cRPN) to resolve shortcomings of the traditional RPN and show the extensibility of cRPN. Methods: We suggest cRPN which is based on Cobb-Douglas production function, and represent the various application on weighting risk factors, weighted RPN in a mathematical way, and show the possibility of statistical approach. We also conduct numerical study to examine the difference of the traditional RPN and cRPN as well as the potential application from the analysis on marginal effects of each risk factor. Results: cRPN successfully integrates previously suggested approaches especially on the relative importance of risk factors and weighting RPN. Moreover, we analyze the effect of corrective actions in terms of econometric analysis using cRPN. Since cRPN is rely on the reliable mathematical model, there would be numerous applications using cRPN such as smart factory based on A.I. techniques. Conclusion: We propose a reliable mathematical model of RPN based on Cobb-Douglas production function. Our suggested model, cRPN, resolves various shortcomings such as consideration of the relative importance, the effect of combinations among risk factors. In addition, by adopting a reliable mathematical model, quantitative approaches are expected to be applied using cRPN. We find that cRPN can be utilized to the field of industry because it is able to be applied without modifying the entire systems or the conventional actions.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdelgawad M, Fayek AR. 2010. Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136(9):1028-1036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.000021
  2. AIAG, VDA. 2019. FMEA Handbook.
  3. Ben-Daya M, Raouf A. 1996. A revised failure mode and effects analysis model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  4. Bevilacqua M, Braglia M, and Gabbrielli R. 2000. Monte Carlo simulation approach for a modified FMECA in a power plant. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 16(4):313-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1638(200007/08)16:4<313::AID-QRE434>3.0.CO;2-U
  5. Bowles J. 2004. An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis. Journal of the IEST 47(1):51-56. https://doi.org/10.17764/jiet.47.1.y576m26127157313
  6. Bowles JB, Pelaez CE. 1995. Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 50(2):203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00068-D
  7. Braglia M, Frosolini M, and Montanari R. 2003. Fuzzy criticality assessment model for failure modes and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  8. Braglia M. 2000. MAFMA: multi-attribute failure mode analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  9. Carlson C. 2012. Effective FMEAs: achieving safe, reliable, and economical products and processes using failure mode and effects analysis. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons.
  10. Carmignani G. 2009. An integrated structural framework to cost-based FMECA: The priority-cost FMECA. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(4):861-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.09.009
  11. Chang K-H, Cheng C-H. 2011. Evaluating the risk of failure using the fuzzy OWA and DEMATEL method. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 22(2):113-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0266-x
  12. Cheng ML, Han Y. 2014. A modified Cobb-Douglas production function model and its application. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics 25(3):353-365. https://doi.org/10.1093/imaman/dpt012
  13. Chin K-S, Wang Y-M, Poon GKK, and Yang J-B. 2009. Failure mode and effects analysis by data envelopment analysis. Decision Support Systems 48(1):246-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.08.005
  14. Cobb CW, Douglas PH. 1928. A theory of production. The American Economic Review. 18(1):139-165.
  15. Filz M-A, Langner JEB, Herrmann C, and Thiede S. 2021. Data-driven failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to enhance maintenance planning. Computers in Industry 129:103451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103451
  16. Fussell J. 1972. A new methodology for obtaining cut sets for fault trees. Trans Am Nucl Soc.
  17. Garcia PA, Schirru R. 2005. A fuzzy data envelopment analysis approach for FMEA. Progress in Nuclear Energy 46(3-4):359-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2005.03.016
  18. Gargama H, Chaturvedi SK. 2011. Criticality assessment models for failure mode effects and criticality analysis using fuzzy logic. IEEE transactions on Reliability. 60(1):102-110. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2010.2103672
  19. Hossain MM, Majumder AK, and Basak T. 2012. An Application of Non-Linear Cobb-Douglas Production Function to Selected Manufacturing Industries in Bangladesh. Open Journal of Statistics 2(04):460. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2012.24058
  20. Jang JS, An DG. 1997. How to Perform FMEA Effectively. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 25(1).
  21. Kim BN, Kwon HM, Kwon SH, and Lee MK. 2018. A Risk Evaluation Procedure in FMEA for Failure Causes including Common Cause Failures. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 46(2):327-338. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2018.46.2.327
  22. Kim SY, Yun WY, and Kim HG. 2007. Reestablishment of RPN Evaluation Method in FMEA Procedure for Motors in Household Appliances. Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management 35(1):1-9.
  23. Kutlu AC, Ekmekcioglu M. 2012. Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications 39(1):61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.044
  24. Liu H-C, Liu L, Bian Q-H, Lin Q-L, Dong N, and Xu P-C. 2011. Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy evidential reasoning approach and grey theory. Expert Systems with Applications 38(4):4403-4415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.110
  25. Liu H-C, Liu L, Liu N, and Mao L-X. 2012. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications 39(17):12926-12934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.031
  26. Liu H-C, Liu L, and Liu N. 2013. Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review. Expert systems with applications. 40(2):828-838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.010
  27. Liu H-C. 2016. FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. FMEA using uncertainty theories and MCDM methods. Springer, pp.13-27.
  28. Military U. 1949. Procedure for performing a failure mode effect and criticality analysis. United States military procedure MIL-P-1629.
  29. Mohanty AR. 2014. Machinery condition monitoring: Principles and practices. CRC Press.
  30. NASA. 1966. Procedure for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). Office of manned space flight, Apollo program, Apollo Reliability Quality Assurance Office.
  31. Sharma RK, Sharma P. 2012. Integrated framework to optimize RAM and cost decisions in a process plant. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25(6):883-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.04.013
  32. Stamatis DH. 2003. Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. Quality Press.
  33. Walder K, Walder O. 2017. Methoden zur Risikomodellierung und des Risikomanagements. Springer.
  34. Wang Y-M, Chin K-S, Poon GKK, and Yang J-B. 2009. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert systems with applications 36(2):1195-1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.028
  35. Xiao N, Huang H-Z, Li Y, He L, and Jin T. 2011. Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA. Engineering Failure Analysis 18(4):1162-1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.02.004
  36. Yang Z, Bonsall S, and Wang J. 2008. Fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 57(3):517-528. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2008.928208
  37. Yazdi M, Nedjati A, Zarei E, and Abbassi R. 2020. A reliable risk analysis approach using an extension of best-worst method based on democratic-autocratic decision-making style. Journal of Cleaner Production 256:120418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120418
  38. Zammori F, Gabbrielli R. 2012. ANP/RPN: A multi criteria evaluation of the risk priority number. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 28(1):85-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1217
  39. Zheng D. 2015. Future Information Engineering and Manufacturing Science: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Future Information Engineering and Manufacturing Science (FIEMS 2014), June 26-27, 2014, Beijing, China. Vol. 2. CRC Press.