POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Item: Date: Team:

Process Responsibility:

Manufacturing

FMEA Number: Prepared by: Page:

12/2/2013 RCF-JNA-NB-TE

Process Function

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

S e v

C l Potential Cause(s)/ a Mechanism(s) of Failure s s

O c c u r

Wrong Material No material

Poor Finish

3

Wrong screen distribution

5

Wrong silo

Bond fluctuates

Potential Failure Mode

/Requirements MOLDING Receiving raw sand-

Current Process Controls

Incoming inspection reviews supplier’s COA before receiving

D e t e c t

R. P. N.

6

90

4

80

Locked silos

Premix bond-

Sand cooler Sand temperature-

Moisture content-

Wrong blend

Poor Finish

No material Wrong silo

Bond fluctuates

Hot return sand

Cracked molds/ sand defects/ porosity

5

Porosity/ poor muller controls Hot sand problems

5

Wet return sand

Dry return sand

5

Bad blending

4

Reviews sample of material before receiving Locked silos

Cooler not operating properly

4

Maintenance & molding supervisor monitors Hartley printout of temperature and moisture content of the return sand

3

60

4

Maintenance & molding supervisor monitors Hartley printout of temperature and moisture content of the return sand

3

60

Low sand to metal ratio

Cooler not operating properly

Mechanics-

Down time

Low return sand bin level

Poor finish/ porosity

4

Unauthorized personnel made changes on Hartley

4

Only authorized personnel makes changes

3

Mulling time-

Wrong entry

Sand defects/ cracked molds

4

Unauthorized personnel made changes on Hartley

2

Only authorized personnel makes changes

3

Sand temperature-

Hot sand

Cracked molds/ sand defects/ porosity

Mulling Batch weight-

Poor PM

PM 48

Low sand to metal ratio

Production scheduling monitored to equal tonnage poured

24

Recommended Action(s)

Responsibility & Target Completion Date

TDSM -001 John N. Anderson

1 of 5

Action Results Action Taken

S e v

O c c

D R.P. e N. t

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Item: Date: Team:

Process Responsibility:

Process Function

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

S e v

No/low bond

Sand defects/ cracked molds

6

High bond

Dimensional problems

/Requirements Mulling Cont. Bond addition-

New sand addition-

No new sand Too much new sand

Water addition-

High water Low water

FMEA Number: Prepared by: Page:

C l Potential Cause(s)/ a Mechanism(s) of Failure s s

Did not turn bond back on after cleaning muller

O c c u r

4

High sand to metal ratio

Current Process Controls

Leadman checks after muller clean out

D e t e c t

R. P. N.

2

48

Zone charting on bond control

Sand sticking to pattern Poor finish

5

Inventory not checked, entered improperly

3

Check levels weekly and orders as needed

4

60

Porosity/ poor finish/ dimensional Sand defects

5

Hartley Control System needs reset

4

Dump sand and reset Hartley unit.

3

60

Mechanics-

downtime

Wrong setup-

Pattern crash/ high sand to metal ratio/ dimensional

Mechanics-

Downtime

Pattern

Worn gating-

Heat code-

Wrong date

Disa-matic Molding

Manufacturing

12/2/2013 RCF-JNA-NB-TE

Poor PM

PM

6

Personnel entered wrong setup

2

Only trained machine operators enter setup

7

84

Tearups/ sand & metal defects

5

Did not inspect pattern before installation

3

Leadman inspects patterns and has heat codes changed before production is to start

3

45

Poor traceability

5

Did not inspect pattern before installation

3

Leadman inspects patterns and has heat codes changed before production is to start

3

45

Recommended Action(s)

Responsibility & Target Completion Date

TDSM -001 John N. Anderson

2 of 5

Action Results Action Taken

S e v

O c c

D R.P. e N. t

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Item: Date: Team:

Process Responsibility:

Manufacturing

FMEA Number: Prepared by: Page:

12/2/2013 RCF-JNA-NB-TE

Process Function

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

S e v

/Requirements

C l Potential Cause(s)/ a Mechanism(s) of Failure s s

O c c u r

Current Process Controls

D e t e c t

R. P. N.

MELT Receive raw materials –

Wrong material

Tramp elements high/ high undercooling

7

Material contains undesirable elements

3

Incoming inspection inspects all critical material before acceptance

3

63

Chemistry-

Wrong chemistry

Defective castings, scrap or salvage by heattreat

6

Soft or hard castings, carbides, shrink

4

Spectrometer chemistry checks, mechanical property audits

3

72

Temperature-

Low

Will not melt

High

High undercooling

Mechanics

No production

Low

High undercooling Shrinks/ carbon burn out

3

63

Holding furnace Chemistry-

High

Temperature-

POURINGTemperatures

Ladle

7

Did not monitor temperatures

More readable shopcards Temperature monitored thru the melt

Poor PM

PM

Did not correct charge soon enough

3

Did not monitor temperatures

Spectrometer analysis taken each heat.

Low

Low pouring temperature

Mechanics

No production

Temperature Recorder not working Cold ladle

Cold shuts/ misruns/ porosity

7

PM on units not performed

2

Scheduled calibration and upkeep on daily basis

2

28

Green ladle

Hidden porosity

8

Ladle not cured enough

3

Ladles are rebuilt and cured to remove moisture from lining/ pig first iron to assure cured

4

96

Mechanics

No production

Poor PM

Monitored at scheduled intervals

PM

Recommended Action(s)

Responsibility & Target Completion Date

TDSM -001 John N. Anderson

3 of 5

Action Results Action Taken

S e v

O c c

D R.P. e N. t

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Item: Date: Team:

Process Responsibility:

Manufacturing

FMEA Number: Prepared by: Page:

12/2/2013 RCF-JNA-NB-TE

Process Function

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

S e v

Carbides/ poor machinability/ un-uniform graphite size/ alloy addition will not meet chemical/ mechanical specs

8

/Requirements

Inoculation

Scales off Tare weight off Not placed in stream

Final analysis

Hot checks

Casting shake out

Mechanics

Low production

Proper temperature Copper blocks not cleaned Im-Proper grinding Shot in wrong file

Inaccurate results on spectrometer

Mechanical Did not Pick out molds

Cannot test Shifted castings

Wire brush grinder down

Cannot determine shift Warped castings

Too hot shake out Too cool shake out

3

C l Potential Cause(s)/ a Mechanism(s) of Failure s s

Calibration got off

O c c u r

5

Current Process Controls

Scheduled calibration

Improperly trained personnel

Leadman oversees operation during production

Poor PM

PM

Improperly trained personnel

3

Trained employees to proper procedures

D e t e c t

R. P. N.

3

120

7

42

Build up on copper blocks

Low Brinell

4

6

Poor PM Did not follow shop card

Ran off molds after production to clean rails No production after running order

4

PM on spectrometer Leadman oversees process

3

48

2

Monitored to control

1

12

Recommended Action(s)

Poke Yoke the alloy weigh up system to assure the holder does not tilt until Alloy weight is correct.

Responsibility & Target Completion Date J. Lemke 12/15/13 Completed 11/25/13

TDSM -001 John N. Anderson

4 of 5

Action Results Action Taken Updated the scale system the holding furnace will not lauder iron unless weight is recognize in the laaddle.

S e v

O c c

D R.P. e N. t

8

5

2

80

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Item: Date: Team:

Process Responsibility:

Manufacturing

FMEA Number: Prepared by: Page:

12/2/2013 RCF-JNA-NB-TE

Process Function

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

S e v

/Requirements

C l Potential Cause(s)/ a Mechanism(s) of Failure s s

Current Process Controls

R. P. N.

4

72

No production Over or under blasted castings/ warps or sand on castings

Mechanics

Low production

De-risring

Deriseing by hand

Bent castings

8

Improperly trained personnel

3

Grinding supervisor oversees operation

3

72

Grinding

Not to B&L shop card

Rework to grind properly

5

Improperly trained personnel

3

Trained personnel to procedure

6

90

INSPECTIONQc audit

Sample size

May result in rejections

7

Improper communication of customer requirements

2

Customer requirements on B&L shop card along with verbal communication

7

98

Wrong Containers

May result in rejections

8

Ran out of proper containers

2

Shipping will reject if packaged improperly

2

32

Scales off

Casting count off

Wrong amount shipped Not shipped in window

May result in rejection

7

42

6

3

Low shot capacity

Poor PM

Weekly PM

Brinell

SHIPPINGPackaging

PM Controlled entry on units and monitored

D e t e c t

Mechanics Under or oversize loads Shot distribution Improper amperage

CLEANINGShot Blast

Poor PM Weigh cell not set properly

O c c u r

Calibration off

3

Did not check computer for P.O. requirements

Scheduled calibration

2

B&Ls checked for P.O. requirements

Recommended Action(s)

Responsibility & Target Completion Date

TDSM -001 John N. Anderson

5 of 5

Action Results Action Taken

S e v

O c c

D R.P. e N. t