Research Article

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/qre.2011

Published online in Wiley Online Library

A Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis

of Conventional Milling Machine Using Fuzzy
Logic: Case Study of RCM
G. Gupta* and R. P. Mishra
The purpose of this paper is to select the appropriate maintenance strategies for each failure mode of functionally signicant
item of conventional milling machine. In order to describe the criticality analysis of conventional milling machine, this paper
presents a study on reliability-centered maintenance with fuzzy logic and its comparison with conventional method. On the
basis of fuzzy logic, failure mode and effect analysis is introduced integrating with fuzzy linguistic scale method. After that,
weighted Euclidean distance formula and centroid defuzzication is used for calculating risk priority number. The results
indicate that based on risk priority number, value criticality ranking was decided, and appropriate maintenance strategies
were suggested for each failure mode. It also reects that a more accurate ranking can be performed by the application of
fuzzy logic using linguistic rule to failure mode and effect analysis. Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: RCM; FMEA; fuzzy logic; RPN; reliability

1. Introduction
eliability-centered maintenance (RCM) analysis is a structured maintenance technology to optimize maintenance strategy for
each component of a system. A lot of maintenance strategies have been developed during last few decades. Reliability-centered
maintenance has been one of the most recent strategies in maintenance around the world. Reliability-centered maintenance
originated in the airline industry in the 1960s as a systematic process for implementation of maintenance strategies like reactive,
preventive, condition-based and proactive maintenance. Reliability-centered maintenance provides a structured and practical
approach for arriving at an acceptable maintenance strategy for each component of a given system.
Many authors have attempted for the development of RCM concept since 1960. Nowlan & Heap1 rst introduce the RCM concept
in 1978. Richet et al.2 applied the fundamental principles of RCM to 15 foundries, which were very distinct in terms of type, size, level
of technology and geographical location. Penrose et al.3 applied RCM techniques on electric motors. Liang et al.4 applied the concepts
of RCM to evaluate the reciprocating compressor. Fonseca et al.5 developed a new framework for RCM implementation in the
chemical process industry. Chen and Zhang6 described the implementation of RCM in Chinas nuclear energy eld. Literature review
shows that RCM includes all historical records such as the list of functionally signicant item (FSI), failure mode effects and criticality
analysis (FMECA) information and achievements of RCM applications in various industries like chemical, oil and gas, power
distribution, manufacturing etc. apart from nuclear and airline industry.
Failure mode effect and criticality analysis is the key step of RCM. Failure mode effects and criticality analysis helps to direct the
maintenance on the desired failure modes and to prevent the critical failure causes. It follows with the optimal selection of maintenance
strategy using RCM logic decision in nal stage of RCM. Failure mode effects and criticality analysis is a very comprehensive tool to assist in
structuring maintenance management, by considering each failure mode within the system. Failure modes analysis provides some
information about (i) functional importance of the subsystem, (ii) description of all potential failure modes of the system and (iii) criticality
analysis, which ranks all failure modes in logical order. The determination of critical ranking of failure modes is a vital issue of failure mode
and effects analysis (FMEA). The traditional method of FMEA determines the critical ranking of failure modes using the risk priority
numbers (RPNs), which is the product of evaluation criteria like the occurrence (O), severity (S) and detection (D) of each failure mode.
This may not be realistic in some applications. Failure mode and effects analysis proves to be one of the most imperative early preventive
actions for systems, which can prevent the sudden failure. However, practical applications of the FMECA have been considerably criticized
for a number of reasons (Ben-Daya and Raouf,7 Gilchrist,8 Liu and Wei,9 Braglia et al.,10 Bowles11). Specically,

I. FMECA does not consider possible interdependencies among each failure mode and its effects.
II. Limited to three parameters only, that is, S, O and D for criticality analysis.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Sciences, Pilani Campus, Pilani, Raj, India, 333031
*Correspondence to: Gajanand Gupta, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Sciences, Pilani Campus, Pilani (Raj), 333031, India.

E-mail: gajanand_gupta@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

III. The results of RPN calculation is strongly dependent on small variation of S, O and D factors. The same RPN could result starting
from different values of S, O and D.
IV. Same importance of these parameters has to be considered while calculating the RPN.
To overcome these drawbacks of the traditional FMEA, signicant efforts have been proposed in FMEA literature. As a result, fuzzy logic
approach is widely used in FMEA literatures. Bowles and Pelaez,12 presented two fuzzy based approach, rst is based on numerical
ranking, and another is based on linguistic ranking for RPN calculation. Chang et al.13 (1999) used fuzzy linguistic terms to evaluate O,
S and D and utilized grey relational analysis to determine the risk priorities of potential causes. Xu et al.14 (2002) developed a fuzzy FMEA
assessment expert system for diesel engines gas turbocharger. Pillay and Wang15 (2003) proposed a fuzzy rule base approach to avoid the
use of traditional RPN. Braglia et al.10 (2003a) proposed a risk function, which allows fuzzy ifthen rules to be generated in an automatic
way. Braglia et al.16 (2003b) proposed a fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) approach for
FMECA, which is a fuzzy version of the technique for order preference by TOPSIS method. Lertworasirkul et al.17 (2003) proposed fuzzy
data envelopment analysis approach for FMEA of pressurized water reactor auxiliary feed-water system. Wang et al.18 (2009) proposed
a fuzzy weighted geometric mean approach to evaluate the risk in FMEA. Bertolini,19 (2006) presented a fuzzy VIKOR criticality analysis
approach for FMECA technique and tested by means of an industrial case study, dealing with an important Italian oil renery. Yang
et al.20 (2010), proposed a new FMECA model using fuzzy theory for a computer numerical control machine tool. Zaropoulos et al.21
(2005) developed a methodology for the reliability prediction and FMECA of electronic devices using fuzzy logic. Gupta and Mishra22,23
applied the concepts of RCM to evaluate the conventional lathe machine using traditional method and fuzzy logic of calculating of RPN.
The previous literature review reects that various qualitative and quantitative approaches like grey relation analysis, TOPSIS, data
envelopment analysis, VIKORs methods integrated with fuzzy have been used with FMECA. But the implementation of these
approaches is limited to specic sectors only like power distribution, gas turbine etc. So, the lack of implementation of this approach
in manufacturing sector encouraged us to do for more research in this area. An attempt has been made to implement FMECA
integrated with fuzzy on conventional milling machine. The milling machine is selected for fuzzy FMCEA implementation as its plays
a vital role in manufacturing industry. The maintenance of milling machine is also very tedious task as it has a lot of complex parts or
components. Hence, a fuzzy logic approach using linguistic variable for FMECA has been proposed for conventional milling machine,
followed by suggested maintenance strategy using RCM logic in this study.
The paper is in order as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology. Sections 3 and 4 describe a RCM case study using fuzzy logic
and traditional RPN method on conventional milling machine. Section 5 presents the comparison of proposed approach with
tradition RPN method followed by the conclusion of case study in Section 6.

2. Methodology
In this paper, the RCM methodology integrated with fuzzy logic is applied. Among these methodologies, RCM is one of the latest
technologies in maintenance around the world, which was introduced by the airline industry in the 1960s. Reliability-centered maintenance
mainly focuses on preserving the equipment functionality and is used to select the appropriate maintenance strategy for each equipment.
The rst step of RCM is to recognize the functionally signicant component or item of a system. After that, a fuzzy FMEA is used to evaluate
the effect of functional failure and criticality analysis for each FSI. The various steps of proposed methodology are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The proposed methodology: RCM with fuzzy logic

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

3. Study of reliability-centered maintenance methodology on conventional milling machine

3.1. System selection and identication of functionally signicant item
Because of its immense importance of milling machine in the manufacturing industry and the poor maintenance strategy employed in many
places, a case study has been performed in various workshops and small scale industries for this valuable machine. The equipment history
les, vendor manuals, system operation manuals have been referred for data collection of failure history and used maintenance strategies.
Thereafter, FSI of milling machine has been identied based on their functional importance. The conventional milling machine can
be decomposed into a number of subsystems like spindle, electrical, hydraulic and coolant system. These subsystems include ve
functionally signicant items or components, that is, seal rings, which are used for hydraulic system mainly, electric motor, gear
box, bearing and belt drives as shown in Figure 2.
3.2. Failure mode and effects analysis of the functionally signicant items
Failure mode and effects analysis is one of the most efcient low-risk tools for prevention of problems and for identication of more
effective solutions. A new FMEA model employed by Yang et al.20 on computer numerical control machine tool is implemented in this
paper. This model was composed with risk-space diagram, fuzzy scale method and weighted Euclidean distance formula. The FMEA
chart of milling machine components is shown in Table I.

Figure 2. The functionally signicant items of milling machine

Table I. FMEA of the milling machine components

Component
Component function
1. Seal ring
2. Electric motor

Provide a leak proof seal

between component parts.
Converts electrical energy to
mechanical energy.

Failure mode
1.1. Face wear
1.2. Embrittlement
2.1. Overheating
2.2. Power supply anomalies

3. Gear box

Provides speed and torque

conversions from a rotating
power source.

3.1. Wear
3.2. Surface fatigue failure

4. Bearing

Supporting and aligning other

parts of the milling machine.

3.3. Breakage
4.1. Wear
4.2. Indentation
4.3. Corrosion

5. Belt drive

Power transmission between

shafts.

5.1. Pulley misalignment

5.2. Belt slip
5.3. Belt fatigue

Failure effect
Leakage in component parts.
Seal components acquired damaged.
Cause separation of greases and
breakdown of oils causing bearing failure.
Voltage unbalances lead to overheating
and decreased efciency.
1. Gear teeth eroded by wear.
2. Bearing seizes.
1. Gear tooth may break.
2. Formation of craters on gear
teeth (pitting).
1. Cracking of vital components in gears.
1. Premature failure of contact surfaces.
1. Bearing will not run properly.
1. Uneven distribution of load
because of material getting eroded.
2. Bearing will not run.
1. Belt failure.
1. Wear and heat generated with
reduced belt life.
1. Breakage of belt.

FMEA, failure mode and effects analysis.

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

3.3. Criticality analysis of each failure mode using fuzzy logic
3.3.1. Fuzzy membership function of S, O and D Each failure mode is sequentially numbered as a failure mode pointer for the evaluation of
risk priority of each component. The inuence of three parameters severity, occurrence and failure detection is considered to evaluate the
criticality or risk priority of a component. These parameters are measured on ve point linguistic scale V = {R = remote, L = low, M = moderate,
H = high, VH = very high} and the evaluation criteria of each one of these parameter is shown in Table II. To measure the average of linguistic
scale values (V), the membership of these factors are dened by triangular fuzzy number, which is shown in Figure 3.
A FMEA team of three experts from different areas was constituted to decide the rating of severity, occurrence and detection for
each failure mode. By means of rating for each failure mode, triangular fuzzy number of Si, Oi, Di are given by the following equations:
(
)
m 
X

Si SiL ; SiM ; SiR
SijL ; SijM ; SijR =m
(1)
j1

Oi OiL ; OiM ; OiR

(
m 
X

OijL ; OijM ; OijR

)
=m

(2)

=m

(3)

j1

Di DiL ; DiM ; DiR

(
m 
X

DijL ; DijM ; DijR

j1

i 1; ::::; n ; j 1; :::::; m
where Sij represents the fuzzy scores of the ith failure mode; j represents the jth expert and the total no. of expert is represented by m.
The rating given by different authors for each failure mode is shown in Table III, and the deduced values by Equation (1) to (3) of
membership function of these factors are shown in Table IV.
Table II. Selection criteria for failure modes evaluation23
Severity
R
L

Occurrence
R
L

Insignicant effect, corrected immediately by the maintenance.

Minor effect, the component suffers to a gradual degradation case if
not repaired.
Moderate effect, the component does not execute its function, but
the maintenance of failure demands the stop of machine.
Critical effect, maintenance demands stop of machine.

VH

Very critical effect, failure brusquely interrupts the system functions.

VH

M
H

Probability of failure is zero.

A failure is likely occurred once in the
last 2 years.
Probability of failure is moderate (3 to 5
failures) in the last 2 years.
Probability of failure is high (6 to 8
failures) in the last 2 years.
Probability of failure is extremely high
(9 to 10 failures) in the last 2 years.

Detection
R
Failure indicated directly by the operator.
L
Failure identied by the maintenance team during daily inspections.
M
Failure identied by abnormal noises.
H
Failure identied by inspection team and it is not possible to be performed by operator.
VH
Occult failure, impossible to be identied by the operator or maintenance team.

Figure 3. Function plot of fuzzy linguistic scale for s, o and d

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

Table III. Rating for each failure mode by FMEA experts
S. no.

Expert 1

Expert 2

Expert 3

Failure mode no.

SOD

SOD

SOD

1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3

M VH L
MHM
MMM
LLR
HMM
HMM
VH M M
MHM
MHM
HHH
MHH
LMR
HMM

MHM
MHM
MMM
RLR
MLH
MLH
HLH
MMM
MML
MHH
L VH M
LLL
MMM

L VH M
L VH M
HMM
LMR
HMM
HMM
HLH
MHL
MML
HMH
MHH
LLR
HHM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

FMEA, failure mode and effects analysis.

Table IV. Membership function of s, o and d of each failure mode

S. no.
Failure mode no.
Severity (S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3

(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)

(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)
(4.67, 5.67, 6.67)
(1.67, 2.33, 3.33)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(6.67, 7.67, 8.67)
(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)
(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)
(2.00,3.00,4.00)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)

Occurance (O)

Detection (D)

(7.33, 8.33, 9.33)

(6.67, 7.67, 8.67)
(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)
(2.67, 3.67, 4.67)
(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)
(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)
(2.67, 3.67, 4.67)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(4.67, 5.67, 6.67)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(6.67, 7.67, 8.67)
(2.67,3.67,4.67)
(4.67, 5.67, 6.67)

(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)

(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)
(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)
(1.00, 1.00, 2.00)
(4.67, 5.67, 6.67)
(4.67, 5.67, 6.67)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(3.33, 4.33, 5.33)
(2.67, 3.67, 4.67)
(6.00, 7.00, 8.00)
(5.33, 6.33, 7.33)
(1.33,1.67,2.67)
(4.00, 5.00, 6.00)

3.3.2. Algorithm of risk priority number The risk space diagram is used according to risk assessment on aviation safety management
by Lee.24 for calculating the cut fuzzy value of Si, Oi and Di. The right-hand and left-hand values of Si, Oi and Di are calculated by level using Zadehls extension principle and are expressed by the following equations:
SiL SiL SiM  SiL

(4)

SiR

(5)

SiR  SiR  SiM

OiL OiL OiM  OiL

(6)

OiR OiR  OiR  OiM

(7)

DiL

DiL DiM  DiL

(8)

DiR DiR  DiR  DiM

(9)

where SiL and SiR represents the left-hand and right-hand value of S interval of ith failure mode by -level. [OiL ,OiR ] and [DiL ,DiR ]
represents O and D interval, respectively. Figure 4 shows the applied risk space diagram based on S, O and D by -level. Subsequently,
left-hand and right-hand values of RPN for each failure mode are calculated using weighted Euclidean distance formula, which is
given by Equations (10) and (11).

rX


2 rX
RPNiL
w 2x x iL  x i min =
w 2x
(10)
x

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

Figure 4. Risk space diagram of ith failure mode

20

Table V. Fuzzy RPN and critical ranking of each failure mode

=0
= 0.5
Failure
S. no.
mode no.
RPNiL
RPNiR
RPNiL
RPNiR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1.
5.2
5.3

4.51
4.32
4.49
1.90
4.92
4.92
5.94
4.29
4.08
5.38
4.41
2.13
5.12

6.42
6.25
6.48
3.60
6.90
6.90
7.88
6.27
6.07
7.38
6.34
4.08
7.11

4.98
4.80
4.99
2.26
5.42
5.42
6.42
4.78
4.58
5.88
4.89
2.61
5.62

5.93
5.76
5.99
3.11
6.41
6.41
7.39
5.78
5.58
6.88
5.86
3.59
6.61

= 1.0
RPNiL
5.46
5.28
5.49
2.62
5.91
5.91
6.91
5.28
5.08
6.38
5.37
3.09
6.11

RPNiR
5.46
5.28
5.49
2.62
5.91
5.91
6.91
5.28
5.08
6.38
5.37
3.09
6.11

Centroid

Critical
ranking

5.46
5.29
5.49
2.69
5.92
5.93
6.91
5.30
5.08
6.38
5.38
3.10
6.12

7
10
6
13
5
4
1
9
11
2
8
12
3

RPN, risk priority number.

RPNiR

r
X 
X
2 r
w 2x x iR  x i min =
w 2x
x

(11)

where Wx represents the weights of the risk factor (x = S, O, D), which is employed as [0.5396, 0.2970, 0.1634] respectively by
Carmignani.25 In the earlier equation, xi min represents the minimum value of xi, which equals 0 according to Figure 4. Finally, centroid
method is used to decide the critical ranking of each failure mode. The values of fuzzy RPN and critical ranking of each failure mode
using Equations (49), (10) and (11) is shown in Table V.
After that, each failure mode has been categorized as high, medium and low critical according to their critical ranking. Failure mode
having critical ranking up to 6 considered as high critical, 7 to 10 considered as medium critical and rest are considered as low critical.
3.4. Reliability-centered maintenance logic decision and selection of maintenance strategy
According to RCM logic decision, which is shown in Figure 5, the maintenance strategy is selected on the basis of criticality level and
effect of various types of failures. Mainly three maintenance strategies are categorized namely corrective maintenance, preventive
maintenance and condition-based maintenance. The recommended maintenance strategy of functional signicant items of
conventional milling machine is shown in Table VI.
Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

Figure 5. RCM logic decision 4

Table VI. Maintenance strategy of conventional milling machine

Component
Failure mode
1. Oil seals
2. Motor
3. Gear box

4. Bearing

5. Belt drive

1.1.
1.2.
2.1.
2.2.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.

Face wear
Embrittlement
Overheating
Power supply anomalies
Wear
Surface fatigue failure
Breakage
Wear
Indentation
Corrosion
Pulley misalignment
Belt slip
Belt fatigue

Criticality

Maintenance strategy

Medium
Medium
High
Low
High
High
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High

Corrective maintenance
Condition based maintenance
Condition based maintenance
Corrective maintenance
Periodical predictive maintenance
Periodical predictive maintenance
Real time state detection
Condition based maintenance
Corrective maintenance
Periodical predictive maintenance
Corrective maintenance
Corrective maintenance
Real time state detection

4. Criticality analysis of each failure mode using traditional method

In traditional method, the inuence of three parameters severity, occurrence and failure detection is considered to evaluate the
criticality or risk priority of each failure mode. The classication criteria of each one of these parameters are same as shown in
Table II. These three parameters are measured in a scale of 1 to 5 {R = 1, L = 2, M = 3, H = 4, VH = 5} to evaluate the criticality or risk
priority of each failure mode. Here, only one expert out of the three, which has most experience decided the rating of severity,
occurrence and detection for each failure mode.
From these parameters, we have dened the RPN, which is calculated by the product of these three parameter (Severity
Occurrence Detection) and used to taking decision for criticality of various failure mode of each component. The RPN no. for various
failure mode of each component is shown in Table VII. We have categorized each failure mode at three level as high, medium and low
critical according to their RPN. Failure mode having RPN more than 35 considered as high critical, below 20 considered as low critical
and rest are considered as medium critical.

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3
3
4
3
4
4
5

Severity

RPN, risk priority number.

1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3

Failure mode
5
4
5
5
4
3
3

Occurance
3
3
2
2
2
3
2

Detection

Evaluation factors

45
36
40
30
32
36
30

RPN

Table VII. Risk priority table for failure modes of each component

1
3
2
5
4
3
5

Critical ranking
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3

Failure Mode

Conventional milling machine

2
3
3
4
4
5

Severity

3
4
4
4
3
2

Occurance

3
3
2
2
3
4

Detection

Evaluation factors

18
36
24
32
36
40

RPN

7
3
6
4
3
2

Critical ranking

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

Table VIII. Comparison of critical level of each failure mode using fuzzy and traditional method
Component
Failure mode
RPN value
Critical ranking
Fuzzy RPN value
1. Oil seals
2. Motor
3. Gear box

4. Bearing

5. Belt drive

1.1. Face Wear

1.2. Embrittlement
2.1. Overheating
2.2. Power supply anomalies
3.1. Wear
3.2. Surface fatigue failure
3.3. Breakage
4.1. Wear
4.2. Indentation
4.3. Corrosion
5.1. Pulley misalignment
5.2. Belt Slip
5.3. Belt fatigue

45
36
40
30
32
36
30
18
36
24
32
36
40

1
3
2
5
4
3
5
7
3
6
4
3
2

5.46
5.29
5.49
2.69
5.92
5.93
6.91
5.30
5.08
6.38
5.38
3.10
6.12

Critical ranking
7
10
6
13
5
4
1
9
11
2
8
12
3

RPN, risk priority number.

5. Comparison of criticality analysis of each failure mode using fuzzy risk priority number
and traditional risk priority number method
The critical ranking from the proposed FMECA approach is compared with the traditional FMEA using RPN method and is shown in
Table VIII. From this table, consider failure mode 2.1 and 5.3, where the RPN is 40. From Table VII, the values of S,O and D are 4, 5 and 2
for failure mode 2.1 and 5, 2 and 4 for failure mode 5.3; hence, a RPN of 40 is obtained. Same for failure mode 1.2, 3.2, 4.2 and 5.2,
where the RPN is 36 and for failure mode 3.1 and 5.1, where the RPN is 32. However, the RPN for the recent failure mode is same,
but the risk levels are different. The ranking of proposed method shows that failure mode 5.3 has a higher priority compared with
2.1. However, traditional method of RPN puts these failure modes as having the same priority. Same as 3.2 has a higher priority
compared with others in their group of traditional method of RPN. This reects that a more accurate ranking can be performed by
the application of fuzzy logic using linguistic rule to FMEA. Hence, the results of comparison of both the methods strongly
recommended the fuzzy RPN methods for criticality analysis of failure modes of each component.

6. Conclusion
A failure mode effect and criticality analysis using fuzzy logic approach is introduced in the paper to overcome the limitation of
traditional FMECA approach. The comparison of criticality level of each failure mode using fuzzy RPN and traditional FMECA
approaches has also been performed. The comparison of both the approaches recommended the implementation of FMECA
integrated with fuzzy logic approach. It reveals that the use of fuzzy approach resolves several problems of the traditional method
and has the following advantages: (i) it allows to evaluate the criticality of failure mode directly using the linguistic fuzzy term, (ii)
qualitative or imprecise information as well as quantitative data can be used for assessment and (iii) it provides a more exible
structure for combining of these three parameter (S, O and D).
The fuzzy RPN of each failure mode based on their fuzzy linguistic rule has been calculated. After that risk or criticality level is
decided for each failure mode. The results of the study on conventional milling machine shows that 46% failure modes are highly
critical, 24% are low critical, and 30% are medium critical. Reliability-centered maintenance logic has been used to select the
maintenance strategy, which shows that periodical predictive maintenance strategy is mostly used for high critical component and
corrective maintenance strategy is used for low critical components. This study concluded that implementing recommended
maintenance strategy using fuzzy theory on RCM as compared with traditional methods helps in increasing the availability of machine
and also improves the reliability of the machine.

References
1. Nowlan FS, Heap HF. Reliability Centered Maintenance. National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce: Springeld, VA,
1978.
2. Richet D, Cotaina N, Reilly KO. Application of reliability centered the foundry sector. Control System Engineering 1995; 3:10291034.
3. Penrose HW. RCM-based motor management. in Proceedings Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing Expo 2005; 2005:187190.
4. Liang W, Pang L, Zhang L, Hu J. Reliability-centered maintenance study on key parts of reciprocating compressor. 2012 International Conference on
Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering 2012:414418. doi:10.1109/ICQR2MSE.2012.6246265.
5. Fonseca DJ, Knapp GM. An expert system for reliability centered maintenance in the chemical industry. Expert System Application 2000; 19:4557.
6. Chen Y, Zhang T. Application & development of Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM) in Chinas nuclear energy eld. 2012 International
Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering 2012:543548. doi:10.1109/ICQR2MSE.2012.6246294.

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,

G. GUPTA AND R. P. MISHRA

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Ben-Daya M, Raouf A. A revised failure mode and effects analysis model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 1996; 13:4347.
Gilchrist W. Modelling failure modes and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 1996; 10:1623.
Chang CL, Liu PH, Wei CC. Failure mode and effects analysis using grey theory. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 2001; 12:211216.
Braglia M, Frosolini M, Montanari R. Fuzzy criticality assessment model for failure modes and effects analysis. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 2003; 20:503524.
Bowles JB, Carolina S. An assessment of RPN prioritization in a failure modes effects and criticality analysis. Journal of the IEST 2003; 47:5156.
Bowles JB, Peldez CE. Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety 1995; 50:203213.
Chang C-L, Wei C-C, Lee Y-H. Failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy method and grey theory. Kybernetes 1999; 28:10721080.
Xu K, Tang L, Xie M, Ho S, Zhu M. Fuzzy assessment of FMEA for engine systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2002; 75:1729.
Pillay A, Wang J. Modied failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2003; 79:6985.
Braglia M, Frosolini M, Montanari R. Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode. Effects and Criticality Analysis. Quality and Reliability Engineering
International 2003; 19:425443.
Lertworasirkul S, Fang SC. Joines, J. A & Nuttle, H. L. W. fuzzy data envelopment analysis (DEA): a possibility approach. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2003;
139:379394.
Wang Y-M, Chin K-S, Poon GKK, Yang J-B. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy weighted geometric mean. Expert Systems
with Applications 2009; 36:11951207.
Bertolini M. Fuzzy VIKOR criticality analysis approach for FMECA technique. Safety and Reliability for Managing Risk 101108, 2006.
Yang ZYZ, et al. A new failure mode and effects analysis model of CNC machine tool using fuzzy theory. Information and Automation (ICIA), 2010
IEEE International Conference on 582587, 2010. doi:10.1109/ICINFA.2010.5512403
Zaropoulos EP, Dialynas EN. Reliability prediction and failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) of electronic devices using fuzzy logic.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2005; 22:183200.
Gupta G, Mishra RP. An application of the reliability centered maintenance : case study of conventional lathe machine. In 8th ISDSI International
Conference, Hyatt Regency, Pune, India January 24, 2015.
Gupta G, Mishra RP. An application of reliability centered maintenance using fuzzy logic on conventional lathe machine. In International
Conference on Evidence Based Management 2015 (ICEBM2015), Department of Management, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus 5, 2015.
Lee W-K. Risk assessment modeling in aviation safety management. Journal of Air Transport Management 2006; 12:267273.
Carmignani G. An integrated structural framework to cost-based FMECA: the priority-cost FMECA. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2009;
94:861871.

Authors' biographies
Gajanand Gupta is working as a lecturer and pursuing his PhD in the Mechanical Engineering Department of Birla Institute of
Technology and Science, Pilani. He earned his degree of Masters of Technology (MTech), specializing in production engineering from
the NIT Rourkela in May 2011 after completing his BTech in Mechanical Engineering from ECK Kota, in June 2009. His research
interests are in the areas of reliability engineering and maintenance management.
Professor Rajesh P. Mishra started his professional career as a lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department at BITS, Pilani, which
he joined in June 2005 after gaining his PhD from same institute. Presently, he is serving as an assistant professor in Mechanical
Engineering Department. He has published a number of papers in international journals and has participated in a number of
conferences, presenting technical papers. He is currently guiding one PhD. His research interests are in the areas of reliability
engineering, manufacturing management, and maintenance management.

Copyright 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2016,