Group multicriteria method to prioritize actions in failure mode and effects analysis

Zanazzi, José Francisco; Zanazzi, José Luis; Pontelli, Daniel

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20210057

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Thematic Section - Advances in Production Research • Prod. 32 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20210057 copy

Group multicriteria method to prioritize actions in failure mode and effects analysis

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Paper aims

The FMEA method (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) has difficulty in prioritizing actions, verifying agreements among group participants and assessing uncertainty. This paper overcomes these shortcomings. The proposal applies FMEA in traditional format, establishes priorities for improvement actions, updates them periodically with better criteria than the traditional ones and values group agreement.

Originality

Other contributions claim to change the method, but this is not accepted by the organizations that apply it. In addition, they propose individual approaches, when the FMEA is essentially group-based. In contrast, this proposal establishes priorities without altering the basic requirements of the FMEA.

Research method

An action-research approach is used.

Main findings

Ease of application, improved group learning and commitment to action plans are confirmed.

Implications for theory and practice

A new group decision-making method is applied and a flexible solution is proposed, adaptable to very diverse problems.

Keywords
Process approach; Corrective actions management; Group decision making; Multicriteria decision support

Process: Manufacture of car springs
Operation	Function. Requirements	Failure modes	Consequences	Cause	Frequency	Improvements proposed
Heating the rod	Rod temperature to melting point	Temperature below specifications	May cause mild problems in the coiling	Fuel (gas) supply problems	1 every 20000	Place a pressure gauge in the gas circuit, which automatically stops the job in the case of excessive variations
Coiling	Space between coils	Very small space	May affect paint and cause cosmetic defects	Large rod diameter	1 every 30000	Install a go-no go gauge before entering the heating furnace, which prevents the treatment of parts with deformations
Coiling	Space between coils	Very small space	May affect paint and cause cosmetic defects	Damaged chuck	1 in 300	Add an optical sensor that checks the chuck and detects possible deformations
Coiling	Outer diameter	Excessive outer diameter	May affect paint. Claims for assembly difficulties	Chuck maintenance	1 in 500	Modify the procedure used for chuck maintenance
Quenching	Sharply reduce spring temperature to harden the surface of the part	Out-of-spec quenching oil temperature	The required surface hardness is not reached	Oil cooling circuit runs with problems	1 every 9000	Change the components of the oil cooling system with high periodicity
Tempering	Reduce stress on the spring surface that originates from tempering	Non-homogeneous temperature profile inside the furnace	Heterogeneity in the surface hardness of the tempered parts	Failure in maintenance of the tempering furnace. Age of the tempering furnace	1 every 10000	Change the tempering furnace
Blasting	Blast the spring surface with steel balls, to extend the service life of the part	Nozzles deformed by use	Parts do not receive the density of impacts needed to achieve the service life required by design	Wear of nozzle material	1 every 25000	Implement a method of checking and maintaining nozzles

Criteria	Definition	Categories
Impact on the Product	Impact of the proposed action on the product. Target to maximize.	Slight
		Minor
		High
		Very high
Impact on the Process	Impact of improvement on the process. Criterion to maximize.	Slight
		Minor
		High
		Very high
Probability	Influence of the proposed transformation to reduce the likelihood of failure occurrence. Criterion to maximize.	Slight
		Minor
		High
		Very high
Cost	Cost of the improvement. Minimization Criterion.	Slight
		Minor
		High
		Very high

IVR- 1st iteration
N =	8	K =	4
SSW =	0.186	IVR =	0.318
SSU =	0.583	> 25%	31.80%

IVR - 2nd iteration
N =	8	K =	4
SSW =	0.036	IVR =	0.062
SSU =	0.583	< 25%	6.23%

Criteria	Impact on the Product	Impact on the Process	Impact on Frequency of Failure	Cost
Average of the criteria weights	0.35	0.25	0.1	0.3

Categories	Average utilities assigned to categories
Categories	Impact on the Product	Impact on the Process	Impact on Frequency of Failure	Cost
Slight	0.123	0.123	0.123	0.415
Minor	0.185	0.185	0.185	0.277
High	0.277	0.277	0.277	0.185
Very high	0.415	0.415	0.415	0.123

Proposed improvement actions	Criteria
Proposed improvement actions	Impact on the Product	Impact on the Process	Impact on Frequency of Failure	Cost
Place pressure gauge to regulate gas pressure	Slight	Minor	Slight	High
Go-no go gauge when entering the heating furnace	High	Slight	Slight	Slight
Optical sensor on the chuck, which detects deformations	Very high	High	Very high	High
Modify chuck maintenance criteria	Very high	High	Very high	Slight
Improve the oil circulation system in the quenching	High	Minor	High	Minor
Change the tempering furnace	High	Minor	Very high	Slight
Implement nozzle check and maintenance in the blaster	High	Slight	High	Minor

Alternatives	Criteria				Scores	Prioritization	Order
Alternatives	Impact on the Product	Impact on the Process	Impact on Frequency of Failure	Cost	Scores	Prioritization	Order
Place pressure gauge to regulate gas pressure	0.123	0.185	0.123	0.185	0.1571	0.082	7
Go-no go gauge when entering the heating furnace	0.277	0.123	0.123	0.415	0.2645	0.138	4
Optical sensor on the chuck, which detects deformations	0.415	0.277	0.415	0.185	0.3115	0.163	2
Modify chuck maintenance criteria	0.415	0.277	0.415	0.415	0.3805	0.199	1
Improve the oil circulation system in the quenching	0.277	0.185	0.277	0.277	0.254	0.133	5
Change the tempering furnace	0.277	0.185	0.415	0.415	0.3092	0.161	3
Implement nozzle check and maintenance in the blaster	0.277	0.123	0.277	0.277	0.2385	0.125	6
Average of the criteria weights	0.35	0.25	0.1	0.3

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, Travessa 2, 128 - 2º andar - Room 231, 05508-900 São Paulo - SP - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: production@editoracubo.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *jfzanazzi@gmail.com, **jl.zanazzi@gmail.com, ***dpontelli@gmail.com