8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

MENU

Home / Articles / 2018 / Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA have much in common, and a few critical differences
By Claudio Passarella
Nov 06, 2018

From a methodology point of view, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA); failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) and failure modes, effects and
diagnostics analysis (FMEDA) are the same thing. FMEA is a methodology to identify ways a product, safety device, process or system can fail (reference IEC-
60812).

FMECA is an extension of FMEA. In addition to FMEA, FMECA ranks the identified failure modes in order of importance, according to calculation of one of two
indexes: risk priority number (RPN) or criticality (C).

FMEDA is a systematic, detailed procedure that is an extension of the classic FMEA. Its purpose is to calculate the failure rates of a target system, which can be a
device or group of devices that perform a more complex function. This methodology was first developed for electronics and recently extended to mechanical and
electromechanical devices.

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Allow all cookies Show details

Common concepts and methodology

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 1/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA share the same basic concepts of component, device and arrangement of devices. A safety instrumented function (SIF) consists of
several devices that shall execute a safety action to protect a machine, equipment or process plant from the consequences of a hazard. For example, the devices in a
SIF can be transmitter, isolator, logic solver, motor contactor, etc.

Each device is built with components. For example, a transmitter is built with components such as gaskets, bolts, membrane, electronic circuit, etc. A valve actuator is
built with components such as gaskets, O-ring seal, stems, shaft, yoke, guide bar bearing, inner end cap, diagraph, piston, etc.

An arrangement of devices can be just considered as one combined device for the implementation of a SIF. For example, an actuator-positioner-valve is the
arrangement of devices that can be considered as the final safety element of SIF. Other arrangements of devices would be solenoid valves with a pressure
transmitter for monitoring and diagnostics, or a power supply, isolation circuit and microprocessor for a PLC.

Components, devices and arrangements of devices can be part of the target system for a FMEA, FMECA or FMEDA assessment.

FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA share a common methodology. The common methodology can be applied prior or during the design, construction or final installation of
the target system. The common methodology analyzes and reviews the failure modes of each component that is part of a device to rank the chance of failure of all
components.

When the methodology is applied to an arrangement of devices, in addition to identifying failure modes and effects, a reliability block diagram of that arrangement
“shall be developed to evaluate the interaction among the devices” per IEC-61078.

The basic steps in the common methodology are to:

1. Define the target system and its structure

2. Establish the analysis scenarios
3. Assess cases from combinations of scenarios
4. Perform the failure modes and effects (FME) study, and
5. Perform the FME assessment.

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Allow all cookies Show details

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 2/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

Failure mode analysis venn diagram

Built on failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), failure modes, effects and criticality
analysis (FMECA) adds risk, and failure modes, effects and diagnostics analysis (FMEDA)
adds reliability information.

This website uses cookies

The target system can be a simple device, such as a solenoid valve, actuator or exhaust valve, or a complex device, where some device components are complex
We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
enough to consider as devices themselves. For example, if the target system is an airplane, the global positioning system, propulsion system and life support system
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
are components of the airplane that are managed as devices.
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

When establishing an analysis scenario,

Allow allbear in mind that the way a device or arrangement fails in one operation/environment condition can change when the same
cookies Show details
device or arrangement is working in a different operation/environment condition, for example, a motor normally running vs. normally stopped, a fail-close
actuator/positioner/valve (APV) normally opened vs. normally closed, or a mechanical device that is critical in cryogenic conditions vs. 0 ‑ 100 °C operation.

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 3/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

From the scenarios and target system structure, decide the cases for assessment. For example, for an APV basic assessment cases can be: fail-open APV (open to
trip) with full valve stroke test (FVST); fail open APV (open to trip) with no FVST; fail open APV (close to trip) with FVST; and fail open APV (close to trip) with no
FVST.

For each simple device, develop a FME table and apply it for each analysis scenario in the study. The structure of the FME table can vary for a FMEA, FMECA or
FMEDA. The FME table structure also can vary according to the nature of the target system, and is filled by an FMEA/FMECA/FMEDA specialist or FME specialist.

Next, a review/analysis session, like in a HAZOP, shall be performed to allow all representative involved in the project, manufacturing or operation of the target
system to review and adjust the pre-filled FME table. The pre-filled FME tables are provided to session participants before the session, but in general, individual
comments should be noted, but should not be considered before the session because it is better and less time-consuming to evaluate the integrated opinion of all
session participants and look for conclusions that consider all points of view.

The result of the failure modes and effects study is a report with all reviewed/adjusted FME tables and conclusions/decisions about the target system. If the target
system is modified after the study session, the procedure should be repeated. However, minor changes can be evaluated separately by the relevant FME specialist.

While the steps through FME study are essentially the same for FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA, the assessment and results are different.

Uncommon ends
Because they are sensitive to the nature of the target system and analysis scenarios, there is not enough space here to detail the many possible different structures
of the FME tables for FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA assessments. In general, a FMEA focuses on all the ways a target system can fail. These ways are the failure
modes, and one failure mode can have several failure effects.

FMECA assessment results include the FMEA results and the ranking all FMEs. This ranking is used to identify the components (or devices) with higher impact on
target system reliability, where changes or enhancement are typically required to improve safety indexes such as average probability of failure on demand (PFDavg),
average dangerous frequency of failure (PFHavg), mean time to failure spuriously (MTTFs) or mean time to failure dangerously (MTTFd).

The FMECA can be developed to provide a qualitative or quantitative assessment, and in both cases, it should provide a target system criticality matrix to show
graphically which components (or devices) have higher and lower impact on the target system reliability.

This website uses cookies

FMEDA assessment results include the FMEA results and target system reliability data. This data can be used for target system SIL verification, SIL certification, or
We use
contribution when calculating a SIF’s cookies
SIL rating.to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The reliability data is provided as the quantification (typically failures per billion hours) of:
Allow all cookies Show details
Safe detected failure rate: Failure rate of the target system to move its operation condition from normal to safe state. Safety/control system or operator can be
notified, and the target plant or equipment is protected.

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 4/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

Safe undetected failure rate: Failure rate of target system to move its operation condition from normal to safe state. Safety/control system or operator will not be
notified, and the target plant or equipment is protected.
Dangerous detected failure rate: Failure rate of target system where it will remain in normal state when a demand happens, but the safety/control system or
operator can be notified to fix the problem or to apply maintenance. The target plant or equipment is not protected, but the problem is identified, and there is a
chance to fix the failure before a demand occurs.
Dangerous undetected failure rate: Failure rate of target system where it will remain in normal state when a demand happens, and the safety/control system or
operator will not be notified. The target plant or equipment is not protected, the problem is hidden, and the only chance to identify and to fix the failure is when a
proof test is performed. If required, FMEDA assessment can reveal which portion of dangerous undetected failures can be identified by proof test—in other words,
FMEDA assessment could provide the proof test effectiveness (Et) or proof test coverage (PTC) of the proof test application on the target system.
Annunciation failure rate: Failure rate of the target system that will not affect safety performance to move its operating condition from normal to safe state. For
example, a transmitter local display failure.
No effect failure rate: Any other failure rate of identified failures that will not make the target system fail safely or dangerously.

References
Liutaio – Functional Safety Services, 0418D10SD01 Abbreviations Example, Revision 1,www.LiutaioCES.com/SampleFunctionalSafety/Index.htm
Liutaio – Functional Safety Services, 0418D10SD02 Glossary Example, Revision 1, www.LiutaioCES.com/SampleFunctionalSafety/Index.htm
IEC-60812 2006 Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
IEC-61078 2006 Reliability Block Diagram and Boolean Methods
William M. Goble, and Harry Cheddie, Safety Instrumented Systems Verification - Practical Probabilistic Calculations, ISA 2005
Liutaio – Functional Safety Services, Example 3 - FMEDA assessment for an Actuator-Positioner-Valve arrangement,
www.LiutaioCES.com/SampleFunctionalSafety/Index.htm

About the author

Claudio Passarella, director and CEO, Liutaio Consulting and Engineering Services (www.LiutaioCES.com), can be reached at cpassarella@LiutaioCES.com.

This website uses cookies

Subscribe to our eNewsletters!
We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Related Content Allow all cookies Show details

Standards deliver the interoperability promised by OPAF and NAMUR

FieldComm Group’s protocols and technologies form the base of the two latest openness and…

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 5/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

SIS: How testing impacts reliability

What is your proof test coverage and why does it matter?

Design for safety instrumented systems reliability

Engineer SIS beyond the standards to meet real-world requirements.

How to effectively evaluate low-demand safety instrumented functions

A clear understanding is essential for achieving the needed reliability

Most Popular
Past 7 Days Past 30 Days Past 6 Months All Time

01 A 2018 retrospectiveThis website

on control
During 2018, Operational
uses cyber
system cookiessecurity – we aren’t as far along as many people think
We use cookies to understand how you and
Technology (OT) cyber security threat
use our sitehunting…
and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our

02 Control's 10 most-read
use articles from
of cookies, December
revised 2018 and Terms of Use.
Privacy Policy
From the Top 50 Automation Companies of 2017 to Joe Weiss on…
Allow all cookies

03
Show details
Operational Technology (OT) network monitoring can’t detect “subtle” process sensor issues
There is a common misperception that an OT network monitoring solution…

Siemens, partners strive for security

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 6/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

04 Charter of Trust members detail multiple cybersecurity initiatives during…

05 Top 10 articles of 2018

From the Top 50 Automation Companies of 2017 to live event coverage, these…

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Allow all cookies Show details

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 7/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Allow all cookies Show details

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 8/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

About
Contact Us
Advertise
Media Kit
Rates & Spec
Privacy Policy
Legal / T&C

Content
Voices
Blogs
Out of Control Cartoons
News
Webinar series
White Papers
Multimedia
Special Reports
Events
Products
Technology Roundups
E-lits
This website uses cookies
Magazine We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
Subscribe
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Digital Edition
Allow all cookies Show details
Issue Archive
Reprints

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 9/10
8/1/2019 Evaluating FMEA, FMECA and FMEDA

Site Tools
Knowledge Center
Microsites
Company Profiles
Site Map

Stay Connected
My Account
Newsletters
Social Media
RSS

Contact Us | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Legal Disclaimers, Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2004 - 2019 Control Global. All rights reserved.
P: 630-467-1300 | 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 400N, Schaumburg, IL 60173

Chemical Processing | Control | Control Design | Food Processing | Pharmaceutical Manufacturing | Plant Services | Smart Industry

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes
personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our
use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Allow all cookies Show details

https://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2018/evaluating-fmea-fmeca-and-fmeda/ 10/10