This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

By Jiahong Wang

A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree In Management Technology

Approved: 3 Semester Credits

Dr. John Dzissah

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout May 2004

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin Stout Menomonie, WI 54751

ABSTRACT

Wang (Writer) (Last Name)

Jiahong (First Name) (Initial)

Assessing Measurement System Acceptability for Process Control and Analysis Using Gage R&R Study (Title) Management Technology (Graduate Major) John Dzissah (Research Advisor) May 2004 (Date) 106 (No. of Pages)

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) (Name of Style Manual Used in this Study)

Gage R&R, which stands for gage repeatability and reproducibility, is a statistical tool that is applied to measure the amount of variation in the measurement system which arises from the people taking the measurement and the measurement device. The purpose of conducting the GR&R is to quantify measurement error and to reduce

ii

the measurement system variation if it is excessive. In a typical gage R&R study, several operators each measure a selected set of items more than once. This study is pursued in a large-scale manufacturing plant in western Wisconsin in order to evaluate the capability of a set of new measurement equipment that is just purchased by the company. Some potential problems related to the measurement system might be exposed after this study and recommendations would be made in order to achieve a successful quality improvement.

iii

who provided not only all the relevant data but also opportunities for me to visit and research their plant. John gave me professional direction as well as his time to help me complete this study. In addition. the Quality Manager at the recreational vehicle manufacturing plant. a deep thanks to Michelle Stewart. iv .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere thanks you to. John Dzissah. my research director.

........... vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the study .................................................................................... 4 Measurement process variation ......................................................................................... 12 v ................................................................... vii List of Figures............... 2 Significance of the study ..................................................... 10 Methods in gage R&R ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Measurement system error ...................... 8 Concept of gage R&R ....................................................... 2 CHARPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 2 Limitations of the study.................................................................. 5 Width variation ..................................................................................... v List of Tables.................................................................................................... … 1 Needs for the study .................................................................................................................. 2 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ................................................................................ 5 Location variation .................................................................................. 2 Objectives .TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ..........................................................

........................... 84 vi ..................................................... 17 CHARPTER FOUR: REPORT OF FINDINGS Results ................................................................. 16 Method for data collection ................................... 18 Summary of findings.................................................................................................................................................. 28 Conclusions ............................ 14 Evaluation of results ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Data analysis.... 31 APPENDIX (a).......................................................................................... 22 CHARPTER FIVE: CONCLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Statement of the problem ................................................ 28 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX (b).................................................................................................................................................................. 29 REFERENCE ............................. 18 Data analysis tables ................................................................................................................................................... 16 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................... 70 APPENDIX (d).............................................................................................. 46 APPENDIX (c).................................................................................. 28 Method and procedures ........Average and Range method ...................... 14 CHARPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Subjects ..................................................................... 12 ANOVA method ...........................................................

............ 22 2........................... R&R comparison sheet for FARO arm (Round) ................... Precision and accuracy ............. 5 2....................................... 13 vii ... Gage R&R Report for FARO arm (Square) ....... 23 3.................................. R&R comparison sheet for CMM (Square)............ 26 7........... and R&R............................................................................................... ANOVA Method............ Gage R&R Report for FARO arm (Round) ........ 25 5............................................................ Repeatability............. Average & Range Method. Reproducibility.................................... 27 8............................... Gage R&R Report for CMM (Round) ...... Gage R&R Report for CMM (Square) .................. R&R comparison sheet for FARO arm (Square) ........ R&R comparison sheet for CMM (Round)..........................List of Tables Tables Page 1............................ 24 4.............................. 27 List of Figures Figures Page 1..... 11 3. 26 6........................

It is so important in today’s quality control process for the reason that the goal of process control is reduction of variation in the process and ultimately the products. a measurement system is evaluated by performing a designed experiment known as a gauge repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) study. The point of the study is to measure the measurement error in measurement systems.CHAPTER ONE Introduction A successful quality improvement or statistical process control program needs good measurement systems. Data are retrieved from a set of experiments that are set up on the manufacturing site. In other words. More than often. 2002). Studies of measurement variation are a waste of time and money unless they lead to action to reduce process variation and improve process control. an R&R study analyzes the variation of measurements of a gage (repeatability) and variation of measurement by operators (reproducibility). assisted with the setup of the experiments and discussed potential problems with the vehicle maker in order to develop the measuring system. Statement of the study The purpose of this study is to evaluate a measurement system for a recreational vehicle manufacturer in the mid-western United States. 1 . the assessment of the gage becomes an early priority (Barrentine. This study started in the fall semester. 2003. Since you can’t address something that cannot be measured precisely. The researcher observed the plant environment.

3.Needs for the study This R&R study is specifically designed for the vehicle manufacturer who just purchased a series of new measurement equipment and needs to identify the capability of the measurement system in order to control the whole manufacturing system to produce high quality and safe vehicles. Definitions Measurement: “the assignment of numbers or values to material things to represent the relations among them with respect to particular properties. Limitations of this study This study is limited to the researcher’s time and the work experience in the vehicle manufacturing plant. Assess the capability of the measurement system and make recommendations for improvement. Significance of the study That the vehicle manufacturing process is in control highly relies on the capability of the measurement system. A detailed and specific gage R&R study will be developed. 2. Design and set up a gage R&R study on the Mt 4. The gage R&R study is a necessary and efficient quality control tool for the vehicle maker. Objectives 1. and the CMM using square tube and round tube. Analyze the experimental data by using ANOVA method. This study is planned to identify and thus prevent quality issues that are due to an incapable measurement system.” This definition 2 . FARO arm. Vector measuring system.

3 . software. The process of assigning the numbers is defined as the measurement process. Measurement system: the collection of operations. 1995). 2002). and personnel used to assign a number to the characteristic being measured. Gage: any device used to obtain measurements. Eisenhart (1963). procedures.was fist given by C. the complete process used to obtain measurements (MSA. 1995). gages and other equipment. 2002). frequently used to refer specifically to the devices used on the shop floor. includes go/no-go devices (MSA. Master: A standard that is used as a reference in a calibration process. May also be termed as reference or calibration standard (MSA. and the value assigned is defined as the measurement value (MSA.

(MINITAB. a device may measures parts precisely but not accurately. Measurement Systems Error Typically. which means the measurements have large variance. For instance. measurement system errors can be classified into two categories: accuracy and precision. 4 . Precision describes the variation you see when you measure the same part repeatedly with the same device. 2000) For any measurement system. Accuracy describes the difference between the measurement and the part’s actual value. or a device is neither accurate nor precise (figure 1).CHAPTER TWO Literature Review Introduction This chapter will discuss the concept of measurement system variation as well as the concept of gage R&R (repeatability & reproducibility) study and methods of a GRR study. there is always one or both of these problems in it. 2. 1. This chapter will conclude with a report of findings about the significance of Gage R&R study on process control. or a device is accurate but not precise.

stability is the change in bias over time (MSA. Location variation The location variation shows how accurate the measurement system is. and linearity. Stability determination requires enough data sampled to cover a wide range of possible variation contributors that apply to the process being measured (Niles. That is. Instability can be caused by: 5 . Typically. bias/accuracy. 2002). 2003). Stability is the total variation in the measurements obtained with a measurement system of the same master or parts when measuring a single characteristic over an extended time period. it is broken into three components: stability.Accurate & precise Accurate but not precise Precise but not accurate Not accurate or precise Figure1: Precision and accuracy Measurement Process Variation The measurement system’s variation can be characterized by location variation and width vibration.

1. setup. 2002). Instrument needs to be calibrated/ reducing calibration interval 5. Violation of an assumption. Improper application – position. Worn equipment or instrument 2. operator skill. Poor maintenance – power. Improper use of the setting master 12. rust. Damaged or worn master. Instrument design or method is not robust 8. Environmental drift – humidity. 2002). error in an applied constant 13. power 4. Distortion of gage or part 10. known or unknown. vibration. error in master 7. corrosion. technique 9. Different measurement method – loading. hydraulic. observation error (MSA. Normal obsolescence or aging 3. 2002) Bias is the difference between the true value (reference value) and the observed average of measurements on the same characteristic on the same part (MSA. Bias is the contribution to the total error consisting of the combined effects of all sources of variation. The variations’ contributions to the total error tend to offset predictably and consistently all results of repeated applications of the same measurement process at the measurement time period (MSA. It is the measure of the systematic error of the measurement system. instrument or fixture 6 . Worn equipment. part size. temperature 11. Excessive Bias can be resulted from: 1. Poor quality instrument – conformance or design 6.

Wrong Measuring characteristic 8. If a measurement system has non-linearity. Improper use of the setting master 13. Linearity error 9. temperature 12. Imprecise or inaccurate gage for application 4. 2002) Linearity is referred to as the difference of bias throughout the expected operating range of the equipment (MSA. Wrong instrument design characteristics 7 . Improper use of the setting master 6. error in an applied constant (MSA. Environmental drift – humidity. It can be considered as a change of bias with respect to size. A measurement process may have the capability of measuring small parts but much less accurate when measuring large parts or one end of a long part can be measured more accurately than the other end.2. Violation of an assumption. Equipment needs calibration 3. 2002). Damaged or worn instrument 3. Difference measurement method 11. Distortion (part or gage) 10. the possible causes can be: 1. Wrong gage for the application 7. Improper instrument calibration at both lower and upper end of the range 2. vibration. Damaged master/error in master 4. Poor quality instrument – conformance or design 5.

vibration. (Fixed instrument. wear or quality 3. In fact. point density. poor maintenance or quality 2. or temperature Width variation The width variation shows how precise the measurement system is. fixture failure. The correct term for repeatability is within-system variation when the condition of measurement are defined and fixed. Besides the two common sources of repeatability errors. holding. zeroing. it is broken into two components: Repeatability and reproducibility. Repeatability is usually considered as the “with appraiser” variability. Environmental causes – humidity. The range chart is used to show the consistency of the measurement process because both of these variations are represented by the subgroup ranges of repeated measurements. Within-standard: class. although this is not correct. repair. or clamping 8 . Typically. Within-method: Variation in technique. 2002). part. Two common sources of repeatability error are measurement variations due to the positional variation of the part in the instrument and instrument itself. Within-instrument: wear. method. Usually. repeatability is regarded as equipment variation (EV). 2002). operator.5. and assumptions and environment) (MSA. It is the measurement variation which is obtained with one measurement instrument used by one appraiser several times while measuring the identical characteristic on the same part (MSA. setup. standard. repeatability is the common cause (random error) variation resulting from successive trials under defined and specific conditions of measurement. other possible errors include: 1.

automated systems) is used where the operator is not a significant source of variation. for the same operators. 2002) Reproducibility is the “between appraisers” variability. sample consistency and taper 5. However. lighting. reproducibility is considered as the average variation between-conditions or between systems of measurement (MINTAB. 2. it is defined as the variation in the average of the measurements which are made by different appraisers who use the same measuring instrument when measuring the same characteristic on the same part.e. Within-environment: temperature. Instrument design or method is not robust and uniform 11. B. etc.. This is often true when the manual instruments are influenced by the operators’ skill. etc. technique. form. C. fatigue or training/ manipulation skill 7. Typically. Application – position.4. C. using the same instrument. Lack of rigidity (gage or part) 9.. experience. cleanliness and vibration 6.. humidity. observation error or part size (MSA. 9 . Violation of an assumption – proper operation or stable 10. Within-part (sample): position. method and operators. it is not true when the measurement processes (i. fell. 2000) Possible sources of reproducibility error in a measurement system include: 1. B. Between-instruments: average difference using instruments A. Wrong gage for the application 8. parts and environment. Because of this reason. Between-parts: average difference when measuring types of parts A. Within-appraiser: Position. surface finish.

Between-environment: average difference in measurements over time caused by environmental cycles: this is the most common study for highly automated systems in product and process qualification 7. clamping methods. or holding. Assumption violation 9. “Since you can’t address something that cannot 10 . Between-appraisers: average difference between appraisers caused by technique. It plays a significant role in today’s quality control process for the reason that the goal of process control is to reduce variation in the process and the products. Instrument design or method is not robust 8. training and experience. Application – position.3. However. Ineffective operator training 10. etc. 6. 2002) Concept of Gage R&R “Gage refers to any device used for making measurements. This is recommended study for process qualification and product and a manual instrument. 5.” (Barrentine (2002). skill. manual versus automated systems. 4. An R&R study analyzes the variation of measurements of a gage (repeatability) and variation of measurement by operators (reproducibility). Between-methods: average difference caused by changing point densities. zeroing. Between-standards: average influence of different setting standards in the measurement process. observation error or part size (MSA. studies of measurement variation are a waste of time and money unless they lead to action to reduce process variation and improve process control.

” (Barrentine. Reproducibility. 2002) (figure 2). Repeatability Distribution of repeated measurements on the same part by one operator with the same gage Reproducibility Distribution of the averages of many operators using the same gage R&R The combined effect of gage variation among operators Figure 2 Repeatability. Uncorrected bias or linearity When the measurement errors are random and independent (uncorrelated).be measured precisely. 2002). Repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R). including short-term consistency 2. “Gage R&R is an estimate of the combined variation of repeatability and reproducibility” (MSA. and R&R (Barrentine. the assessment of the gage becomes an early priority. the capacity expression of combined variation can be quantified as: σ2capacity = σ2 bias (linearity) + σ2GRR 11 . 2002) The capacity of a measurement system simply includes the components of: 1. It amounts to the sum of between-system variances and within-system variances.

2. 5. 2003) However. 7.Methods in Gage R&R study Gage R&R can be applied to any kind of measurements (attribute or variables. Average and Range Method The Average and Range method(X and R) is a mathematical method which provides estimates for variability caused by reproducibility and repeatability. MI) method Short range method for destructive testing Short range method for non-destructive testing Long range method for destructive testing Long range method for non-destructive testing The Instantaneous method (one appraiser for equipment variation only) (Keller. repeatability and reproducibility. 9. 3. A few of these methods are as follows: 1. the two most common method types used and supported by statistical software are the ANOVA method (Analysis Of Variance) and the average and range method. 6. Average and range method Analysis of variance (ANOVA) method Within part variation (WIV) method Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG. indeterminate or determinate). The 12 . but not their interaction. 8. This method allows the measurement systems to be broken down into three separate components: part-to-part. 4. Southfield.There are many methods overviewed in the literature that can be used to perform Gage R&R.

then possible causes could be: 1) The appraisers need to be better trained in how to use and read he gage instrument. ANOVA Method If reproducibility is large compared to repeatability.ANOVA method can be used to determine this interaction between the gage and appraisers (See figure3). both the Average and Range method and ANOVA method will provide information concerning the causes of measurement system or gage error. 13 . However. Over Variation Part-to-Part Variation Measurement System Variation Variation due to gage Variation due to operators Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator by Part Average and Range Method ANOVA Method Figure 3: Average & Range Method.

the reasons may be: 1) The instrument needs to be well maintained. %EV (the percent the repeatability or equipment variation). estimate the variances more precisely and accurately. The advantages of ANOVA techniques as compared with Average and range methods are that ANOVA techniques have the capability to handle any experimental set-up. %R&R (the percent the measurement 14 . %AV (the percent the appraiser variation). 3) A fixture of some sort may be needed to help the appraiser use the gage more consistently. the variation can be broken down into four categories: parts. (MSA. 3) The location or clamping for gagging needs improvements. can extract more information from the experimental data. 1995). Evaluation of results From a Gage study. 1995) ANOVA method ANOVA is a standard statistical technique and can be used to analyze the measurement error and other sources of variability of data in a measurement systems study (MSA. appraisers. and replication error due to the gage. The information includes interaction between parts and appraisers effect. 4) There is excessive within-part variation. In the analysis of variance. interaction between parts and appraisers. If repeatability is larger than reproducibly. 2) The gage should be redesigned to be more rigid.2) Calibrations on the gage dial are not correct.

Problems need to be identified and corrected. 10% to 30% error – the measurement system may be acceptable depending upon importance of application. Guidelines for acceptance of gage repeatability and reproducibility are: 1. 1995) 15 . cost of repairs or cost of gage. (MSA. etc.. It needs improvement.system variation for repeatability and reproducibility) and %PV (the percent the part-part variation) are calculated. Under 10% error – the measurement system is acceptable(satisfactory) 2. Over 30% error – measurement system is not satisfactory. 3.

Both FARO Arm machine and CMM machine were used to measure the experimental parts. The measurements were made in a random order. Instrumentation: The data collection sheets were developed by this researcher and adjusted by the plant personnel according to the real measuring environment. To minimize the likelihood of misleading results. Methods for data collection: For each measurement machine. Each appraiser used the same procedure. including all steps. 2. The appraisers were unaware of which numbered part was being checked in order to avoid any possible knowledge bias. The sample parts were selected from the process and had to represent its entire operating range. 3. 1.CHAPTER THREE Methodology Subjects: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the capability of the measurement system that the manufacturing plant has recently applied in their production process. to obtain the readings. three appraisers were used to measure ten square parts and ten round parts. Each appraiser had to measure the same part three times. 16 . 4. the following steps were taken. Each round part had seven dimensional characteristics and each square part had twelve dimensional characteristics.

Data analysis The numerical data that was retrieved by the appraisers has been input to MINITAB13 software for data analysis. Currently. MINITAB is a comprehensive statistical and graphical analysis software package and it has been providing statistical software solutions for over 25 years. and the leading Six Sigma consultants. 17 . 3M. MINITAB is used by thousands of companies worldwide. including GE. Ford Motor Company.

0005529 0.00009 0.06 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability DF 9 2 18 60 SS 0.0000576 F 8. The capabilities of the two measuring machines (CMM & FARO Arm) are to measure both round and square parts.0022591 0.0034533 MS 0. The following Gage R&R data result for CMM machine on the dimensional Characteristic with target value of 6. Key numbers have been highlighted from the original data results in order to clarify the results.CHAPTER FOUR Report of Findings All the data has been analyzed through MINTAB 13 software.5337 P 0.0010343 0.0002510 0. These have been revealed in the data result sheets.00000 0.6758 0.93012 A 18 . they could be applied to boost the quality control system in this plant to produce safe and quality products. Summary of Findings The data results have been categorized in each of the following eight tables.0000307 0. Gage R&R for 6.06 is used as a sample to explain some key result numbers. it has been determined that the current measurement system is not adequate enough to conduct the necessary daily measuring tasks. After reviewing the results of this study. Results The data collection sheet and the original data results can be reviewed in the appendix at the end of the report. Therefore.1722 33. Please see table 1 through table 8.0020687 0.

96 69.43E-02 5.13 48.0022591 0.00 Study Var (5.Total 89 0.02 Part 6.72E-02 3.07 6.039 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19 .17E-03 5.69E-02 2.41E-05 5.04 6.03 0.06E-04 StdDev (SD) 9.17E-03 7.31E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 88.52 45.01 0.0000514 F 4.14E-05 3.95E-02 2.95E-02 2.82 30.045 6.72E-03 4.07 6.0002510 0.055 6.06 6.0083340 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.03 DG LCL=0 EG DIANE KEN 6.1385 P 0.05 6.52 55.00 0 6.00000 Gage R&R Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 8.87 100.06 Components of Variation 100 %Contribution %Study Var 6.03252 Sample Range 0.72E-03 5.0083340 MS 0.51 55.82 20.00003 0.8871 20.00 B Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation C Number of Distinct Categories = 1 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: AG CMMR6.05 R=0.052 Average 6.68 100.05 6.065 6.22E-05 1.04 0 Mean=6.06 6.02 Operator AMI Xbar Chart by Operator 6.28E-05 2.0020687 0.31 30.07 AMI DIANE KEN Operator*Part Interaction UCL=6.02 0.28E-05 3.03E-02 %Contribution (of VarComp) 79.065 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 6.15*SD) 4.71E-03 1.04 6.035 LCL=6.01263 R Chart by Operator AMI DIANE KEN By Operator UCL=0.0010343 0.0040062 0.06 6.03 BG By Part Percent 50 CG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 6.

If the percent contribution form Part-Part is larger than that of Total Gage R&R. CG If the graph represents a nearly level line. When the p-value for “Operator by Part” is < 0.25.25. MINITAB fits the model without the interaction and uses the reduced model to define Gage R&R statistics (MINITAB User’s Guide. If the value is >0. it tells us there are small differences between operators. 2000). very little is due to differences between parts (MINITAB User’s Guide. 2000). B. it tells us there is little difference between operators (MINITAB User’s Guide. it means that most of the variation is due to the measuring system. In this case. which shows the percentage differences between Part-Part and Total Gage R&R (MINITAB User’s Guide. 2000). 2000). 2000).A. MINITAB fits the full model. A very low number tells us that the measurement system cannot distinguish differences between parts (MINITAB User’s Guide. According to AIAG. the ANOVA method will be more accurate than the Xbar and R method. The lower the number is. number “5” represents an adequate measuring system. If it is a level-line. it tells us that most of the variation is due to differences between parts. BG If the graph represents an erratic line (a non-level line). it tells us there are large differences between Parts. AG This graph visualizes the “B” part. If it is almost a level-line. it tells us there is little difference between parts (MINITAB User’s Guide. If the percent contribution form Total gage R&R is larger than that of Part-To-Part. 2000). very little is due to measurement system error. 20 . C. the poorer the measurement system would be.

2000). indicating the variation is mainly caused by differences between parts.DG If most of the points in the Xbar chart are outside the control limits.25. EG This graph is a visualization of the p-value for Oper*Part. 2000). If most of the points in the Xbar are inside the control limits. the shape of each line tends to follow the same pattern and all the lines are close to each other. which indicates a significant interaction between Part and Operator (MINITAB User’s Guide. 21 . indicating the variation is mainly due to the measurement system (MINITAB User’s Guide. If the value is <0.

00 Due to measurement system error 0 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 6.26: 91.03 Due to measurement system error 2 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 0.96 No interaction 8.50748 29.00: 0.82 No interaction 34.01806 Interaction 19.74 Due to parts’ differences 5 Adequate Large differences Small differences Significant Table 1: Gage R&R Report for CMM (Round) 22 .97: 65.13: 20.94 0.38 0.88 Due to both 2 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 0.63 0.04 Due to parts’ differences 3 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 0.87 Due to measurement system error Insignificant 6.47268 14.96: 80.12: 61.00009 Interaction 38.51 Due to measurement system error 1 Poor Due to measurement system Due to measurement system Due to measurement system Due to measurement system Due to measurement system Due to Differences between parts Some differences Small differences Insignificant 4.93012 6.23274 Interaction 84.06 No interaction 79.49: 15.CMM (Round) *DC A B C 1 Poor Components of Variation Due to measurement system By Part Some differences By Operator Small differences Xbar Chart by Operator No differences between operators No differences between operators No differences between operators No differences between operators No differences between operators No differences between operators Due to Differences between parts Operator *Part Interaction 0.98 No interaction 100.62742 3.

44177 38.33: 41.65 Due to measurement system error 22.00000 Interaction 71.67 Due to measurement system error 0 Poor Due to measurement system Due to Differences between parts Due to Both Some differences Small differences Insignificant 1.91 0.76 Due to both 1 Poor Due to both Some differences Some differences Small differences Small differences Insignificant 1.03 No interaction 39.00 0.07: 94.33 Due to measurement system error 1 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 2.20 Due to measurement system error 0 Poor Due to measurement system Some differences Small differences Due to both Insignificant 13.00000 Interaction 58.40 79.03593 Interaction 11.00455 Interaction 20.80: 6.67: 19.36 Due to parts’ differences 4 Adequate Large differences Some differences Small differences Small differences Significant 40.33: 2.68 0.67 Due to both 1 Poor Due to both Insignificant 0.1 0.00000 Interaction 55.34 No interaction 5.85 Due to both 1 Poor Insignificant 0.04431 Interaction 76.01229 Interaction 62.57: 60.CMM (Square) *DC A B C 1 Poor Components of Variation Due to measurement system By Part Some differences By Operator Small differences Xbar Chart by Operator Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to both Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to both Operator *Part Interaction Insignificant 16.00000 Interaction 80.60 Due to parts’ differences 3 fine Big differences Small differences significant 0.35: 28.38: 37.43 Due to both 2 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 0.24: 44.93 Due to parts’ differences 6 Adequate Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Both Large differences Small differences Significant 1.44 No interaction 97.78 0.15: 23.62 Due to both 1 Poor Due to Both Some differences Small differences Due to both Insignificant Table 2: Gage R&R Report for CMM (Square) *Due to both: Due to measurement system error and parts’ differences 23 .30950 40.66 0.58448 145 No Interaction 93.63b 0.63a 0.64: 88.49920 25.

47269 3.00: 0.37: 91.29209 29.00065 Interaction 30.63 0.76 Due to parts’ differences 3 Fine Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to measurement system big differences Small differences significant 0.96 No interaction 8.00 Due to measurement system error 0 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 14.06 No interaction 82.09 Due to both 2 Poor Due to both Some differences Small differences Insignificant 0.96 Due to both 6.98 0.53097 6.01627 Interaction 18.82 No interaction 100.84 Due to measurement system error 1 Poor Due to measurement system Some differences Small differences No differences between operators Insignificant Table 3: Gage R&R Report for FARO Arm (Round) 24 .07371 Interaction 41.88 Due to both 2 Poor Due to both Some differences Small differences Due to both Insignificant 0.FARO Arm (Round) *DC 4.16: 17.49904 6.63 Due to parts’ differences 5 Adequate Large differences Small differences Significant 0.38 No interaction 43.12: 56.04: 69.91: 58.24: 81.94 A B C 2 Poor Components of Variation Due to both By Part Some differences By Operator Small differences Xbar Chart by Operator Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts No differences between operators Due to both Operator *Part Interaction significant 0.

06: 30.87 Due to parts’ differences 8 Adequate Large differences Small differences Significant 1.00000 Interaction 69.91 Due to both 1 Poor Some differences Small differences Insignificant 0.68 Due to both 2 Poor Due to both Some differences Small differences Insignificant 1.08407 Interaction 3.1 ** Error ** No variation within part/operator subgroups.13: 96.44 0.98: 12.63a 0. Execution aborted.03 0.00167 Interaction 46.18 Due to measurement system error 1 Poor Due to measurement system Some differences Small differences Insignificant 38.21 Due to measurement system error 22.79: 6.91 0.40928 13.09 46.00002 Interaction 93.19404 Interaction 3.51: 94.92: 51.82: 12. 145 0.02 Due to measurement system error 1 Poor Due to measurement system Due to Differences between parts Some differences Small differences Due to both Insignificant 0.FARO Arm (Square) *DC A B C 0 Poor Components of Variation Due to measurement system By Part Some differences By Operator Small differences Xbar Chart by Operator Due to Differences between parts Due to both Due to Differences between parts Due to both Operator *Part Interaction Insignificant 16.00 No interaction 8.68 0.89 Due to parts’ differences 5 Adequate Large differences Small differences Significant 2.02855 Interaction 87.66 0.38 Due to parts’ differences 7 Adequate Large differences Small differences Significant 40.08 Due to both 1 Poor Due to Both Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Some differences Small differences Due to both Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Due to Differences between parts Insignificant 40.32: 53.94 Due to both 1 Poor Due to both Some differences Small differences insignificant 25.78 No interaction 5.63b 0.00000 Interaction 53.34 0.62 96.25522 1.01423 Interaction 87.23682 Interaction 48.49 Due to parts’ differences 6 Adequate Large differences Small differences Due to Differences between parts Significant Table 4: Gage R&R Report for FARO Arm (Square) 25 .11: 91.

50 8.89 4.33 20.65 10.66 22.1 145 13.63a 25.24 Total GR%R 71.22 16.63 3.49 38.80 30.31 39.6 44.45 28.32 2.07 80.00 38.64 76.38 4.14 Reproducibility(%) 58.63b 2.39 12.31 8.78 Repeatability(%) 12.65 33.68 63.67 68.98 6.13 84.44 1.12 100.57 5.16 4.05 31.51 83.34 34.25 40.8 62.61 6.00 9.24 2.16 Total GR%R 79.94 14.13 0.09 31.45 7.96 34.82 29.10 Reproducibility(%) 30.99 100.00 19.24 58.CMM (Round) *DC 6.33 97.82 45.68 1.96 Repeatability(%) 48.06 6.34 1.83 12.35 55.97 8.91 40.00 10.67 11.38 <30% <30% <30% Table 6: R&R comparison sheet for CMM (Square) 26 .03 40.26 <30% <30% Table 5: R&R comparison sheet for CMM (Round) CMM (Square) *DC 16.4 39.15 93.07 4.99 17.06 5.27 21.90 47.

59 1.15 56.36 9.91 40.06 87.24 8.04 40.1 145 13.17 13.00 23.34 1.79 46.82 48.78 52.87 2.13 53.06 Repeatability(%) 17.04 18.44 38.57 100.80 0.96 3.63b 1.38 5.55 1.02 47.32 69.42 27.16 <30% Table 7: R&R comparison sheet for FARO Arm (Round) FARO Arm (Square) *DC 16.00 2.62 < 30% < 30% < 30% Table 8: R&R comparison sheet for FARO Arm (Square) 27 .02 20.38 6.91 43.37 87.67 8.12 82.92 3.03 40.49 Total GR%R 30.6 0.08 3 Reproducibility(%) 78.09 8.00 18.33 58.55 7.44 41.11 3.67 Reproducibility(%) 12.98 5.63 29.63a 25.4 21.00 41.51 < 30% Repeatability(%) 15.13 35.98 6.77 26.66 22.68 1.03 0.66 14.7 11.FARO Arm (Round) *DC 4.37 5.82 14.25 28.94 6.37 100.62 Total GR%R 93.34 1.79 23.

This also can be proved from table 1 to table 4 in the category C which uses a “5” as a watershed to roughly indicate whether a measurement system is capable or not. Overall. both machines represent a poor capability for measuring tasks. only about a quarter of total target values is satisfying. it is the same that only five target values out of 19 fall into the less-than-30% category.CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions and Recommendations Statement of the Problem The study was designed to evaluate the capability of a measurement system for a recreational vehicle manufacturer in the mid-western United States in order to improve the quality of its products. Thus. CMM and FARO arm have been evaluated through the study. Data results were retrieved from MINTAB 13 software and based on these results further analysis was achieved. Two measuring devices. For the CMM machine as shown on table 5 and table 6. only five target values out of 19 fall into the less-than-30% category which indicates the measurement system may be acceptable. 28 . Conclusions The data results indicated that the overall measurement system is not acceptable for its intended application. Methods and Procedures The Gage R&R study used ANOVA method which estimates the variances more precisely and accurately than Average and Range Method. For the FARO arm as shown on table 7 and table 8.

the error from the measuring device itself could be due to improper set-up and poor training for operators. It is important to clearly define the problems or issues. As shown on table 5 to table 8. 29 . Sometimes the errors in the measurement system itself are overlooked. However. sophisticated and up-to-date and was purchased by the company before long. the proportion of EV (repeatability%) value and AV (Reproducibility%) value varies. A Cause and Effect Diagram could be applied to give valuable information resulting in a solution or a partial solution. Historical flowchart of the measurement system and process should be reviewed to lead to discussion of known and unknown information on the measurement system itself and its interrelationship to the process. considering the whole measuring system is rather advanced. it will become necessary to analyze and resolve those issues before working on the rest of the system.Further investigation reveals that the poor capability is resulted from both measuring device itself and operators who were involved in the measurement processes. If the possible major causes lied in the measurement system itself. Recommendations A thorough understanding of measurement variation and the contribution is essential. Doing that may cause loss of resources and time since the focus is made on the process. to some degree. for the %GR&R of those target values which are far away from satisfaction. when the actual problems are due the measurement device. Neither of measuring device itself and measuring process assumes a dominating influence on the overall poor capability.

30 .It is magnificent from this study that improvement of operator training and usage of qualified operators are compulsory. the study indicates that operator is a significant source of variation. The changes made in the measurement system and the process should be tested until they reach an appropriate solution. As the measuring devices are partially manual instruments.

W. General Motors Corp. A. R. D.. K.. (1997). from web. C. Guidelines for Expressing the Uncertainty of Measurement Results Containing Uncorrected Bias..edu/~asaqp/qpr/QPRC1999/ papers/early_and_neagu. 2003.com/library/content/c020527a. February). & Sutherland.htm Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual. (2002. (1995. Characterizing the Measurement Process. 31 . from www. (2001). 2nd ed. Ford Motor Corp. Chang. 102. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company Early.utk.). 2003. H. (1992) Statistical Quality Design and Control. and Keith.REFERENCE Devor. ANOVA Models and Data Reduction: Application to GR&R Studies.isixsigma. Ford Motor Corp. E. & Neagu.com/gage_randr. No. from www.pdf Gage R&R. Retrieved November 5. Retrieved November 6.. (n. General Motors Corp.asp Scutoski.T. March). 2003. MINITAB User’s Guide 2: Data analysis and Quality Tools (2000).PDF Steve. from http://healthcare.. Retrieved November 2.. NIST Journal of Research. Minitab Inc. 5. Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual. 2003. Chrysler Corp. Niles. P. Retrieved November 10.. E. 3rd ed.. & Sekar. R.J. Introduction to Gage R&R Study.swtest. (1998)..statlets.d.. T. Chrysler Corp.org/swtw_library/1998proc/PDF/T1_Hank.R. (1999).

22E-05 1.0002510 0.96 69.72E-03 4.1385 P 0.0002510 0.52 45.95E-02 2.15*SD) 4.00003 0.13 48.82 20.31 30.03E-02 Study Var (5.14E-05 3.0010343 0.43E-02 5.5337 P 0.0010343 0.17E-03 7.87 100.0000307 0.0083340 MS 0. Gage R&R Study .82 30.0034533 0.0040062 0.00000 0.APPENDIX (a) Data Results for CMM (Round) ————— 12/21/03 11:10:48 AM ———————————————————— Welcome to Minitab.6758 0.0022591 0.0000514 F 4.17E-03 5.71E-03 1.06 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.68 100.0000576 F 8.0020687 0.41E-05 5.0083340 MS 0.69E-02 2.95E-02 2.31E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 88.28E-05 3.0020687 0.51 55.28E-05 2.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 32 .8871 20.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 6.93012 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.52 55.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 9.72E-02 3.06E-04 %Contribution (of VarComp) 79.00000 Gage R&R Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 8.0005529 0. press F1 for help.00009 0.0022591 0.1722 33.72E-03 5.

07 6.03 LCL=0 6.035 LCL=6.06 6.045 6.05 R=0.02 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 6.01 0.Gage R&R for 6.039 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33 .065 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 6.06 6.03252 Sample Range 0.06 Components of Variation 100 %Contribution %Study Var 6.06 CMMR6.055 6.065 6.05 6.02 Part 6.07 AMI DIANE KEN Operator*Part Interaction UCL=6.03 0.07 6.04 0 Mean=6.03 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part Percent 50 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 6.06 6.01263 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator AMI DIANE KEN By Operator UCL=0.05 6.00 0 6.04 6.04 6.02 0.052 Average 6.

**Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method
**

Gage R&R for 6.38

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction

Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total

DF 9 2 18 60 89

SS 0.0119429 0.0181473 0.0063229 0.0164493 0.0528625

MS 0.0013270 0.0090736 0.0003513 0.0002742

F 3.7777 25.8307 1.2813

P 0.00790 0.00001 0.23274

Gage R&R

%Contribution (of VarComp) 84.49 39.22 45.27 41.59 3.68 15.51 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation

VarComp 5.91E-04 2.74E-04 3.16E-04 2.91E-04 2.57E-05 1.08E-04 6.99E-04

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation

StdDev (SD) 2.43E-02 1.66E-02 1.78E-02 1.71E-02 5.07E-03 1.04E-02 2.64E-02

Study Var (5.15*SD) 0.125157 0.085272 0.091614 0.087814 0.026111 0.053623 0.136161

%Study Var (%SV) 91.92 62.63 67.28 64.49 19.18 39.38 100.00

Number of Distinct Categories = 1

34

Gage R&R for 6.38

CMMR6.38

Components of Variation

100

%Contribution %Study Var

6.50

Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc:

By Part

Percent

6.45

50

6.40

0

Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part

Part

6.50

UCL=0.07199

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

R Chart by Operator

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0

AMI

DIANE

KEN

By Operator

Sample Range

6.45

R=0.02797

6.40

LCL=0

Operator AMI

DIANE

KEN

**Xbar Chart by Operator
**

6.46 6.45 6.44 6.43 6.42 6.41 6.40 6.39 6.38 0

AMI

DIANE

KEN

**Operator*Part Interaction
**

UCL=6.449 Mean=6.421 LCL=6.392

6.46 6.45 6.44 6.43 6.42 6.41 6.40 6.39 6.38

Operator

AMI DIANE KEN

Sample Mean

Average

Part

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

35

**Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method
**

Gage R&R for 4.94

**Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction
**

Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0018200 0.0001638 0.0003620 0.0003333 0.0026791 MS 0.0002022 0.0000819 0.0000201 0.0000056 F 10.0565 4.0734 3.6196 P 0.00002 0.03473 0.00009

Gage R&R

%Contribution (of VarComp) 38.12 16.99 21.13 6.30 14.83 61.88 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation

VarComp 1.25E-05 5.56E-06 6.91E-06 2.06E-06 4.85E-06 2.02E-05 3.27E-05

StdDev (SD) 3.53E-03 2.36E-03 2.63E-03 1.44E-03 2.20E-03 4.50E-03 5.72E-03

Study Var (5.15*SD) 1.82E-02 1.21E-02 1.35E-02 7.39E-03 1.13E-02 2.32E-02 2.95E-02

%Study Var (%SV) 61.74 41.22 45.97 25.10 38.52 78.66 100.00

Number of Distinct Categories = 2

36

Gage R&R for 4.954 LCL=4.965 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean UCL=4.010 UCL=0.955 4.958 4.965 0.94 CMMR4.005 4.965 Percent 50 4.965 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 4.003833 LCL=0 4.950 4.955 Average Mean=4.000 0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 4.945 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.945 0 4.009868 4.94 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 4.955 R=0.945 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 37 .955 4.945 0.

00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 2506320 2506320 0 0 0 2506320 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1583.37257 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 100.00 1583.00 0.38744 0.99995 P 0.15 %Study Var (%SV) 100.99994 1.15 8153.14 1583.Gage R&R Study .00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 8153.14 Study Var (5.47416 0.14 0.47268 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 22556750 5012365 195492947 223062062 MS 2506306 2506182 2506320 F 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.44731 0.00 0.00000 P 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 14.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 0 38 .00 0.00 0.98 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 22556750 5012365 45113868 150379079 223062062 MS 2506306 2506182 2506326 2506318 F 0.99999 0.00 100.99999 0.00 100.15*SD) 8153.

98 Components of Variation 100 %Contribution %Study Var 15000 10000 5000 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part Percent 50 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 0 Part 15000 10000 5000 UCL=1289 R=500.2 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 39 .1 Mean=181.98 CMMR14.6 LCL=0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 15000 AMI DIANE KEN By Operator Sample Range 10000 5000 0 0 0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 5000 AMI DIANE KEN Operator*Part Interaction 5000 4000 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 0 Average 3000 2000 1000 0 UCL=694.Gage R&R for 14.9 LCL=-330.

02E-05 1.15E-02 2.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 6.00000 0.50E-04 1.22E-02 1.14E-03 3.0462 2.0668 8.31E-02 2.0003378 0.0796 P 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 3 40 .62E-02 1.46 100.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.96 10.72 89.11E-03 4.04E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 44.0006756 0.0000202 F 33.Gage R&R Study .0151371 MS 0.27 22.28 3.04 100.13E-02 1.86E-06 7.01806 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 19.70E-03 1.97 19.89 80.00319 0.49E-03 4.71E-05 9.0012113 0.16 5.0124945 0.15*SD) 3.27E-06 1.73E-05 2.30E-02 7.0000420 0.0007557 0.37E-02 Study Var (5.14E-03 2.87 30.80 9.0013883 0.63 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.68 32.87E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 6.39E-02 6.

01 6.70 6.72 6.69 0.01948 Sample Range 0.00 0 6.68 0 Mean=6.715 6.695 6.Gage R&R for 6.73 6.725 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 6.69 Percent 50 0 6.72 6.02 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.698 Average UCL=6.70 6.63 CMMR6.69 6.685 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 41 .705 6.73 6.71 6.71 6.007567 LCL=0 6.70 6.71 R=0.63 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 6.73 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 6.68 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 6.706 LCL=6.713 6.72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.68 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 6.

0252442 0.024322 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 3.97 30.12 80.024322 0.0021891 0.64 100.00000 0.6290 0.088668 0.72E-03 4.0028049 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.Gage R&R Study .0008062 0.13 54.89 4.03 100.065015 0.0001417 F 23.84 22.4640 5.109950 %Study Var (%SV) 59.0016124 0.72E-03 1.0008062 0.0106911 0.89 65.0375478 MS 0.96E-04 4.0028049 0.15*SD) 0.0001216 0.00000 0.23E-05 2.07 4.82 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0252442 0.56E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.8583 P 0.26E-02 1.060294 0.62742 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.13E-02 Study Var (5.59E-04 1.72E-02 2.00696 0.0375478 MS 0.0632 6.17E-02 4.37E-04 2.0016124 0.0085020 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 2 42 .0001371 F 20.12 22.8819 P 0.23E-05 2.00418 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 34.

80 3.75 0.78 3.759 Average UCL=3.Gage R&R for 3.80 3.75 Percent 50 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.01347 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 3.76 3.74 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 3.00 0 R=0.772 LCL=3.82 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 3.76 3.786 3.85 3.03467 0.80 3.80 3.77 3.75 3.74 Sample Mean Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 43 .77 3.81 3.10 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 3.79 3.82 CMMR3.79 3.75 3.85 3.05 UCL=0.78 3.81 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Mean=3.

00 Number of Distinct Categories = 5 44 .0000167 F 202.967 P 0.0000168 F 207.021014 0.0010067 0.0000162 0.0002920 0.10 4.79E-03 4.69E-05 1.15*SD) 0.0033699 0.021162 0.0010464 0.35E-05 1.16 91.0326744 MS 0.029823 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 29.0010464 0.00000 0.73E-04 4.0303293 0.00000 0.96 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0005232 0.26 4.08E-03 4.67E-05 1.00000 0.703 32.74 100.0012987 0.247 0.396 31.0033699 0.78 100.16 4.Gage R&R Study .50748 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.74 20.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.11E-03 4.39 95.25 20.06E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 5.0326744 MS 0.103785 %Study Var (%SV) 28.099408 0.02E-02 Study Var (5.0005232 0.69E-05 3.11E-03 1.423 P 0.0303293 0.93E-02 2.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 8.021162 0.39 20.

18 30.17 30.02 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range UCL=0.14 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 30.21 30.17 30.15 30.01665 0.01 R=0.19 30.20 30.18 LCL=30.006467 0.21 30.20 30.16 30.96 CMMR29.96 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 30.21 30.18 Mean=30.17 30.19 30.14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.15 30.16 30.20 30.00 0 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 30.21 30.18 30.17 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 45 .17 30.Gage R&R for 29.18 30.20 30.16 30.14 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Average UCL=30.15 30.18 30.19 30.14 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 30.15 30.19 30.16 30.

ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 16.66 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.21 28.87E-02 7.90 27.87 53.0036593 0.0005197 0.28 76.0091772 0. Gage R&R Study .00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 46 .47 35.059977 0. press F1 for help.40E-04 4.52084 P 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 71.096281 0.82968 8.69 31.43072 8.36E-04 1.62 55.50E-04 6.10E-05 2.APPENDIX (b) Data results for CMM (Square) ————— 12/21/03 11:18:28 AM ———————————————————— Welcome to Minitab.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.0017829 0.0093542 0.70E-02 1.0045886 0.65 100.53 100.063680 0.040219 0.00213 0.53E-04 1.087478 0.15*SD) 0.89E-04 1.81E-03 1.21E-02 Study Var (5.45 58.90E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.0382365 MS 0.113985 %Study Var (%SV) 84.0000610 F 3.01248 0.061013 0.75 52.16E-02 1.0160458 0.35 12.18E-02 2.24E-02 1.

665 16.655 16.63 16.02 0.585 16.60 16.61 Average UCL=16.66 16.63 16.58 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE LCL=16.605 16.635 16.575 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.64 16.585 16.03235 R=0.61 16.635 16.575 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 16.03 0.66 CMMS16.65 16.595 16.615 16.62 16.665 16.Gage R&R for 16.01257 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 16.66 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 16.645 16.605 16.64 16.58 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 47 .62 16.65 16.59 16.60 16.64 Mean=16.625 16.66 16.61 16.00 0 UCL=0.01 0.655 16.595 16.625 16.62 16.59 16.615 16.645 16.

74 53.74 43.064964 0.078756 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 55.0110834 0.24 7.59E-04 2.3623 7.64E-05 3.93E-02 2.0055417 0.0659584 MS 0.76 100.Gage R&R Study .59E-04 6.0039860 0.26 68.0370648 0.102092 0.53E-02 1.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 4.26E-02 1.68 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 48 .2157 11.98E-02 1.32E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 2.93E-04 1.34E-04 3.00500 0.03 66.14E-02 8.72E-04 8.0007680 0.148519 %Study Var (%SV) 74.00123 0.88E-02 Study Var (5.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 22.12 44.0041183 0.32 28.13 28.099364 0.15E-03 1.041976 0.0138242 0.99 47.0000664 F 5.15*SD) 0.25 19.90 100.5606 P 0.110385 0.

65 UCL=22.00 0 R=0.66 Sample Mean 22.65 22.61 22.65 Percent 50 22.68 CMMS22.Gage R&R for 22.55 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.06 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.05 0.56 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 49 .01217 LCL=0 UCL=0.60 0 22.01 0.61 LCL=22.60 Average 22.68 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 22.02 0.60 22.55 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE Operator AMI DIANE KEN 22.62 Mean=22.03132 22.55 0 22.03 0.60 22.04 0.

67 100.22E-03 Study Var (5.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 58.75E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 76.50E-05 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 7.01620 P 0.51E-05 3.0016256 0.50E-05 3.58E-02 3.37 42.63a Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0009007 0.01 63.51 41.68 11.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 50 .01E-03 5.87E-03 5.15471 6.59E-02 2.0004093 0.0000150 F 4.33 17.00E-02 3.63E-02 2.0036834 0.50E-06 2.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 1.08E-03 5.0069601 MS 0.00312 0.78 33.96E-05 1.53179 4.95E-03 9.Gage R&R Study .03E-02 1.33 64.15*SD) 3.88E-03 3.07E-02 4.54E-05 8.55 100.42 54.0003752 0.46E-05 9.0000903 0.17 29.04E-03 3.0007504 0.65 40.03284 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 4.

600 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Average Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 51 .615 1.623 Mean=1.02 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range UCL=0.612 1.64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.64 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE Sample Mean 1.61 1.620 1.60 0 UCL=1.00 0 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 1.630 1.005633 1.63 1.61 1.617 LCL=1.605 1.63 1.60 0.60 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1.63a Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 1.635 1.Gage R&R for 1.61 Percent 50 0 1.62 1.01450 1.610 1.63 1.63a CMMS1.62 1.62 0.01 R=0.625 1.64 1.

9748 P 0.422665 0.145307 0.33 33.84533 0.83 2.748333 0.7508 59.439041 0.123891 0.11229 0.758520 %Study Var (%SV) 98.14906 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 25.89 16.52449 MS 0.007126 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 0 52 .11229 0.007310 F 1.422665 0.012476 0.50 63.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 97.09916 0.117671 0.021693 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 0.007268 F 1.024056 0.147285 Study Var (5.7167 58.67 100.88 79.013847 0.44 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.52449 MS 0.84533 0.012476 0.117671 0.56688 1.013847 0.83 63.43861 1.021114 0.606008 0.66 57.007268 0.000579 0.606008 0.085251 0.49920 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.1567 P 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 0.Gage R&R Study .3137 0.33 100.89 79.00000 0.12827 0.15*SD) 0.

7 24.5 25.3 25.8 0.5 0.0 24.0 0 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range UCL=0.19 25.Gage R&R for 25.2 0.4 0.3 25.4 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 25.3 25.5 25.4 25.9 24.2 25.4 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean UCL=25.8 24.6 25.7 0.1 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 53 .6 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 25.44 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 25.3 0.4 25.8 24.3 25.1 25.0 24.1 0 Average 25.2 25.7 24.6 25.2 25.2 25.9 24.08563 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 25.36 Mean=25.44 CMMS25.1 0.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.27 LCL=25.1 25.6 0.2204 R=0.

21E-03 4.0030307 0.60 100.0413668 0.0022518 0.45 35.98 79.0045963 0.23E-02 2.08 28.0001251 0.037117 0.22 100.0016834 0.058110 0.99E-03 2.7411 13.4767 P 0.68E-05 5.114789 0.025679 0.0033669 0.49E-05 4.27E-04 5.76E-03 7.15*SD) 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 1.50E-02 Study Var (5.11E-03 8.24E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.31 8.00027 0.96 89.13E-02 7.00000 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.036602 0.85 19.0500161 MS 0.09 12.40 8.4567 2.0000505 F 36.05E-05 7.00455 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 20.97E-04 6.128659 %Study Var (%SV) 45.19E-05 2.00 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.Gage R&R Study .32 3.17 28.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 3 54 .045135 0.

97 0.05 Percent 50 1.03 0.05 1.99 0.98 0.98 0.05 1.00 0.04 1.00 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE R=0.97 0.95 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 1.0084 LCL=0 0.96 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Average Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 55 .02 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0 UCL=0.005 LCL=0.013 Mean=1.00 CMMS1.03 1.00 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 1.96 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE UCL=1.95 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1.03 1.01 1.02162 1.99 0.02 1.02 1.05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator Sample Range 0.9960 1.01 1.00 0 0.04 1.Gage R&R for 1.

80E-05 1.24 60.26E-03 8.90 55.68E-02 4.26E-03 3.03 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0000404 F 18.06E-05 7.0302 P 0.0105563 MS 0.9495 8.15E-03 6.97 28.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 5.68E-02 3.0105563 MS 0.0007194 0.0031540 0.06E-05 1.00000 0.43 100.0000402 F 17.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 38.0066830 0.24 8.0007194 0.3639 8.00033 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 39.85E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 62.0000414 0.00228 0.29E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 7.44177 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.74 100.0007446 0.0066830 0.0007426 0.68E-02 1.6944 1.32 8.Gage R&R Study .71 77.04E-05 1.0007426 0.11E-05 4.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 2 56 .0003597 0.57 31.0003597 0.55E-02 5.8951 P 0.36E-03 3.15*SD) 3.0024093 0.83E-03 1.71 28.00000 0.14E-02 Study Var (5.27E-02 1.

95 Mean=37.93 37.90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator Sample Range 0.009367 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 37.96 37.92 37.96 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 37.02411 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE R=0.95 37.03 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 37.04 0.93 37.92 0 Average UCL=37.02 0.92 37.90 Percent 50 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 37.91 37.Gage R&R for 38.93 37.94 37.92 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 57 .94 37.03 0.03 CMMS38.00 0 UCL=0.95 37.94 37.93 37.96 37.95 37.94 37.96 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 37.01 0.93 37.91 37.95 37.94 LCL=37.

93 100.0208265 MS 0.0002134 0.34 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.58E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 3.777 34.0002134 0.0004269 0.57E-02 1.648 30.0001258 0.0199172 0.67 94.0003567 0.0004269 0.15*SD) 1.86E-02 1.19E-06 6.00000 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.49E-03 2.51 15.43 100.0199172 0.35E-02 1.0000062 F 357.28E-02 1.0000070 0.176 P 0.67 2.506 P 0.00000 0.91E-06 6.35E-02 8.0004825 0.91E-06 2.0000059 F 316.45E-04 2.Gage R&R Study .539 1.06E-02 8.0022130 0.0022130 0.63E-03 1.39 2.35 16.47 16.00000 0.35 97.28E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 22.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 6 58 .31E-05 6.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 40.07 2.0208265 MS 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 5.61E-02 Study Var (5.63E-03 2.30950 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.62E-03 2.

29 40.27 40.010 0.30 40.34 CMMS40.31 40.27 40.31 40.30 Mean=40.30 40.32 40.34 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 40.29 40.26 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 40.28 40.005 0.26 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 40.Gage R&R for 40.32 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 40.29 Average 40.28 40.32 40.29 40.28 40.000 0 UCL=0.26 0 UCL=40.27 40.29 40.30 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 59 .30 40.32 40.015 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.009439 R=0.28 40.003667 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 40.29 LCL=40.31 40.31 40.27 Percent 50 0 40.

106850 0.218258 0.72 82.89 20.97 100.049742 0.68E-04 1.06 68.162877 MS 0.0016528 0.27E-02 2.67 12.07E-03 4.64E-02 3.3531 6.33 100.30E-04 2.53E-03 1.81 34.0336386 0.72 19.23E-03 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 4.016108 0.20 45.243010 %Study Var (%SV) 89.1563 P 0.084383 0.07E-02 4.15E-02 2.52 43.0055269 0.80E-03 2.61 47.83 69.91E-02 3.72E-02 Study Var (5.029750 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 1.24E-02 1.110627 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.168161 0.3441 20.63b Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.61E-04 4.15*SD) 0.Gage R&R Study .00002 0.067277 0.201287 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 80.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 60 .0002685 F 3.01403 0.

70 1.00 0 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 1.75 Sample Range 0.60 Percent 50 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.65 1.63b CMMS1.05 UCL=0.65 1.75 1.60 0 UCL=1.02317 0.75 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 1.663 LCL=1.63b Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 1.70 1.Gage R&R for 1.05964 1.60 R=0.686 Mean=1.65 1.65 1.70 1.60 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 61 .10 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE 1.70 1.639 Average 1.

14E-02 3.00025 0.00000 0.0810063 0.0037520 0.0000625 F 76.042325 0.022025 0.75E-05 4.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 2.14E-02 7.15*SD) 0.058737 0.64 88.36 100.0900616 MS 0.64 5.5859 1.28E-03 3.161798 0.41 1.00 100.25E-05 6.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.05 4.59 21.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 4 62 .Gage R&R Study .91E-03 8.91 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0031901 0.60 6.12 23.0015950 0.66 24.83E-05 9.036143 0.93E-05 1.02E-03 4.87E-04 1.03593 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 11.34E-02 Study Var (5.12E-03 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.80 94.0001174 0.040725 0.8775 P 0.22E-03 7.30E-04 6.0090007 0.6645 13.00 12.172129 %Study Var (%SV) 34.0021133 0.

00 2.02 0.Gage R&R for 2.91 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 3.00 0 UCL=0.05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.02634 3.95 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 63 .04 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.05 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 3.002 Mean=2.01023 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 3.00 UCL=3.91 CMMS2.90 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 3.95 Percent 50 0 2.05 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 3.00 2.90 R=0.95 2.991 LCL=2.01 0.95 0 2.00 2.03 0.05 3.981 Average 3.

33E-04 4.27 66.65714 8.Gage R&R Study .08E-02 3.0250000 0.26 44.054444 0.0110617 0.0016667 F 3.93E-04 3.275024 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 2.153898 0.85 100.139384 0.34E-02 4.0030247 0.65 19.67E-03 1.71E-02 2.050000 0.109572 0.04431 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 76.74E-03 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 5.56 12.210248 0.12E-02 Study Var (5.26531 1.83 100.99E-02 6.44E-02 2.1 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.099556 0.81481 P 0.19E-03 7.71 56.00924 0.09 23.304000 MS 0.23 34.15*SD) 0.77 48.177297 0.315155 %Study Var (%SV) 87.53E-04 8.00284 0.13E-02 2.85E-03 1.51 31.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 64 .100000 0.15 44.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 40.

1 CMMS40.25 40.Gage R&R for 40.2 40.0 0 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 40.25 LCL=40.21 Average 40.2 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.35 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean UCL=40.3 40.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.4 40.1201 R=0.15 0 40.1 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 40.25 Mean=40.15 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 65 .35 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 40.4 40.2 Percent 50 0 40.04667 0.1 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 40.1 UCL=0.30 40.3 40.

34 10.81675 5.90 100.16 24.45 10.115667 0.0077009 F 1.473333 0.34 6.159102 0.78E-02 3.451936 0.85 91.16 32.71809 P 0.15*SD) 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 0 66 .58448 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.72E-04 9.39E-02 9.35 32.66889 4.0363333 0.01719 0.13432 0.66E-03 7.789000 MS 0.54E-04 5.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 145 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.13613 0.600667 0.789000 MS 0.11084 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 8.20 100.54E-04 9.0070741 0.89671 P 0.159102 0.70E-03 9.30E-02 8.80 83.115667 0.61E-02 Study Var (5.072667 0.123206 0.0363333 0.0128519 0.09E-02 2.479124 0.23E-03 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 9.01163 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 93.127333 0.0128519 0.494711 %Study Var (%SV) 96.09E-02 3.0078889 F 1.072667 0.Gage R&R Study .

9 144.7 144.8 Mean=144.65 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 67 .4 0.0 144.7 144.6 144.2 0.0 144.5 0.0 0 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.4 R=0.9 Sample Mean Average 144.75 144.6 144.6 0 LCL=144.7 144.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator Sample Range 0.5 Percent 50 0 144.5 144.6 144.6 0.3 0.Gage R&R for 145 CMMS145 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 145.7 144.1233 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 144.85 Operator AMI DIANE KEN UCL=144.3175 144.4 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 145.9 144.9 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 144.8 144.1 0.

62 100.Gage R&R Study .03 33.01229 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 62.1911 P 0.43 61.02E-02 8.50E-02 8.04E-04 6.52 48.23E-03 1.2245 2.99E-05 3.89E-04 8.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 13.36E-03 5.0012118 0.38E-05 1.24 23.14E-04 3.17 37.52E-05 1.38 28.78 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0051127 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.08E-02 4.0109064 0.74E-02 Study Var (5.4905 12.96E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 78.24E-02 4.00044 0.0022824 0.14 34.75E-02 5.33 100.0000852 F 6.98 53.00E-02 5.05 58.37E-02 9.03E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.0045648 0.15*SD) 7.07 11.0001867 0.82E-03 1.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 68 .00039 0.07E-02 1.0033607 0.0239446 MS 0.30E-02 3.

80 13.835 13.825 13.78 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 13.82 13.845 13.81 13.79 13.81 13.00 0 R=0.865 13.85 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Average UCL=13.78 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 13.03 0.86 13.83 LCL=13.78 CMMS13.88 13.85 13.88 13.83 13.Gage R&R for 13.81 13.855 13.04 0.80 13.83 13.87 13.86 13.78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator Sample Range 0.815 13.86 13.795 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 13.03561 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 13.85 13.82 13.84 13.81 13.84 Mean=13.805 13.84 13.01383 LCL=0 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.80 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 69 .01 0.83 13.02 0.79 13.84 13.82 13.87 13.

60 9.78 69.87E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 54.91E-03 4.39E-06 3.00065 Gage R&R Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 9.57E-02 1.85E-03 2.02E-02 2.67 35.78E-07 3.5103 3.04 17.17E-05 3.94 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0019058 0.57E-03 Study Var (5.9479 1.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 3.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 4.27E-04 1.0348 P 0.66E-03 5.66E-06 2.APPENDIX (c) Data results for FARO arm (Round) Gage R&R Study .0002944 0.24754 0.67 0.10E-05 %Contribution (of VarComp) 30.32E-03 1.72E-03 9.40E-02 2.47 34.00000 0.81 41.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 2 70 .64 100.0002118 0.32E-06 5.90 11.20E-02 1.0000164 0.0025729 MS 0.93E-06 2.0000247 0.98E-03 5.0000054 F 12.0003233 0.36 12.96 100.05E-03 2.32 83.15*SD) 1.0000494 0.

945 0 4.009611 4.955 4.952 LCL=4.010 UCL=0.005 4.945 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.965 0.955 4.955 R=0.000 0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 4.948 Average 4.94 FAROR4.965 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 4.Gage R&R for 4.945 0.955 UCL=4.945 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 71 .965 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 4.94 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 4.003733 LCL=0 4.965 Percent 50 4.956 Mean=4.

Gage R&R Study .50E-05 1.0130824 0.0155646 MS 0.65 81.93 21.00000 0.57E-04 1.42 28.37 4.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.05E-02 2.71 31.0003119 0.15*SD) 3.0007203 0.7950 2.24E-02 2.63 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 3 72 .06E-06 7.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 6.39E-02 Study Var (5.36E-02 6.01627 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 18.55E-02 1.36E-03 4.00364 0.0000400 0.14E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 42.0000190 F 36.92E-03 4.07E-02 1.0014536 0.72 3.61E-05 9.0011380 0.3232 7.01E-03 2.65E-03 1.87 8.11 90.02E-06 1.25E-02 1.92E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 5.72 19.42 100.1099 P 0.0006239 0.90E-05 1.01E-03 3.24 9.45E-02 7.76 100.

72 6.725 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 6.69 6.006233 0.73 6.685 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 73 .02 UCL=0.708 LCL=6.70 6.00 0 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 6.715 6.70 6.74 6.71 6.74 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 6.69 Percent 50 0 6.714 Mean=6.695 6.68 0 UCL=6.74 6.73 Average 6.73 6.72 6.705 6.71 6.63 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 6.72 6.Gage R&R for 6.01 R=0.69 6.03 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.63 FAROR6.71 6.701 6.70 6.735 6.01605 0.68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.68 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 6.

11E-02 Study Var (5.0007850 0.017431 0.93 16.0007850 0.198 P 0.37 2.00000 0.58E-05 2.026151 0.10E-03 3.58E-05 4.461 59.07 95.Gage R&R Study .05 24.45E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 6.0036803 0.08E-04 4.527 P 0.96 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.265 68.02E-02 2.0355860 MS 0.0002362 0.29209 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.57 5.80 5.00000 0.38E-03 5.0008935 0.08E-03 5.15E-05 2.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 5 74 .026151 0.108626 %Study Var (%SV) 28.63 100.823 1.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.72 100.15*SD) 0.0000110 F 280.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 8.0331224 0.72E-05 1.0036803 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 29.07 24.103980 0.0000131 0.0355860 MS 0.0015700 0.0006573 0.0331224 0.0015700 0.0000115 F 321.00000 0.08E-03 2.031428 0.80 91.

009782 R=0.96 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 30.13 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE Average UCL=30.16 30.17 30.18 30.01 0.14 30.00 0 UCL=0.17 30.21 30.20 30.18 30.20 30.16 30.0038 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 30.17 30.13 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 75 .02 0.20 30.03 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.14 30.16 30.19 30.17 30.17 30.19 30.16 30.20 30.21 30.Gage R&R for 29.18 30.18 30.15 30.15 30.19 30.13 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 30.15 30.15 30.14 30.96 FAROR29.18 Mean=30.14 30.19 30.18 LCL=30.21 30.

Gage R&R Study .ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 3.37258 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 100.000 0.38745 0.890 0.000 396.00 100.15*SD) 2043.47416 0.82 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 1417672 315013 2835383 9451312 14019381 MS 157519 157507 157521 157522 F 0.00 0.00 0.999904 P 0.00 0.98 0.47269 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 1417672 315013 12286695 14019381 MS 157519 157507 157522 F 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 157522 157522 0 0 0 157522 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 396.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 0 76 .00 0.999983 0.890 396.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.890 Study Var (5.00 0.00 0.99999 0.44732 0.98 %Study Var (%SV) 100.00 100.00 2043.99991 1.00000 P 0.98 2043.000 0.

5 LCL=0 0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 1500 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 500 0 0 UCL=174.80 Average 1000 1000 500 0 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 77 .0 Mean=45.61 LCL=-82.82 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 4000 3000 2000 1000 Percent 50 0 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 4000 3000 2000 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 4000 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 3000 2000 1000 0 0 UCL=323.1 R=125.82 FAROR3.Gage R&R for 3.

00077 0.07371 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 41.22 100.58E-02 2.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 4.0053665 0.94E-05 1.66 18.72E-03 2.6598 P 0.0000417 0.3122 10.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 2 78 .16E-05 1.03E-02 Study Var (5.Gage R&R Study .81 76.43E-02 2.21E-02 4.35E-03 7.00000 0.72 36.67E-03 5.9624 1.0005963 0.15*SD) 3.52E-06 6.06E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 6.51E-05 1.91 23.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 14.11 22.27E-02 1.25 13.0000251 F 14.85E-03 1.92E-02 1.0007499 0.45E-05 2.64 42.09 100.0015060 0.0004567 0.30E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 64.0009134 0.20 58.38E-05 5.74 48.04 5.40E-03 3.04E-02 5.01E-03 4.98 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0085358 MS 0.

05 0.045 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 79 .06 15.08 15.08 15.08 15.01 R=0.02 UCL=0.085 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 15.07 Percent 50 15.09 15.06 LCL=15.04 0 Average UCL=15.07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.065 15.04 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 15.055 15.04 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 15.05 0 15.00 0 15.075 15.02274 0.09 15.09 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 15.05 15.98 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 15.06 15.07 15.98 FAROR14.06 15.06 15.07 Mean=15.Gage R&R for 14.008833 LCL=0 15.

33 56.87E-02 2.0062156 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 6.9749 P 0.23 53.45E-02 5.23 75.4542 P 0.79 28.0003424 0.94E-05 3.6098 0.0022678 0.00000 0.15*SD) 3.33 28.49904 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.10E-03 6.0006906 0.0011707 0.Gage R&R Study .27E-02 3.52E-03 4.0011339 0.3059 59.0000195 F 36.0000194 F 35.67 38.0011339 0.46 53.72E-05 3.65E-05 1.00000 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 5.90E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 65.0062156 0.88 100.10E-03 8.15E-02 Study Var (5.0000190 0.14E-02 3.72E-05 7.64E-03 1.46E-05 1.0022678 0.00000 0.31E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 7.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 2 80 .0099965 MS 0.0099965 MS 0.12 14.40E-03 6.38 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.14E-02 4.0015131 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 43.42 100.6020 58.0006906 0.

385 Average 6.38 FAROR6.37 0 Mean=6.41 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 6.40 6.42 6.40 6.00 0 LCL=0 6.41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.38 0.40 UCL=6.38 0 6.38 6.393 LCL=6.40 Percent 50 6.Gage R&R for 6.39 6.01 R=0.02 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.007467 6.42 6.38 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 6.401 6.41 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 6.39 6.37 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 6.38 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 81 .39 6.37 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 6.41 6.39 6.01922 Sample Range 0.

75E-02 2.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 7.65 76.03E-03 9.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 82 .0064121 MS 0.0015059 0.49 17.00000 0.49 58.00000 0.0015059 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 82.00009 0.07E-02 4.1321 78.0064121 MS 0.0016149 0.Gage R&R Study .0000215 F 7.75E-02 3.15*SD) 4.53097 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.08E-05 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 8.48 42.4889 0.64E-03 7.0032299 0.0001673 0.0016149 0.0001673 0.0013060 0.64 48.64E-03 4.46E-05 2.7853 75.06 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.62E-05 9.0000218 F 8.0000206 0.24 100.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for 6.1421 P 0.91E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 90.0032299 0.31E-05 5.0016764 0.15E-05 5.29E-03 7.9453 P 0.84 100.31E-05 1.53E-03 Study Var (5.67 58.45E-02 2.29E-03 4.39E-02 3.16 23.48 76.0003704 0.

075 6.035 6.055 6.06 6.050 6.06 FAROR6.060 6.050 6.075 6.007733 LCL=0 0.055 6.030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.07 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean UCL=6.040 6.035 6.05 6.05 6.030 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 6.070 6.Gage R&R for 6.045 6.040 6.06 6.065 6.060 6.070 6.04 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 83 .045 6.067 Mean=6.01991 Sample Range 0.059 LCL=6.00 0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 6.051 6.06 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 6.04 0 Average 6.07 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 6.065 6.01 R=0.02 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.

07E-03 2.0001271 F 1.15E-02 7.41 40.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS16.06E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 2.54 6.00E-05 8.036424 0.141562 0. press F1 for help.02 61.0307718 0.12651 0.75E-02 1.95E-04 1.00000 0.0076233 0.0566676 MS 0.56E-04 1.84E-02 Study Var (5.0153859 0.33 78.27E-04 6.23E-02 1.1453 P 0.2125 4.21 100.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 7.00002 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 93.058050 0.33E-04 5.13E-02 2.15*SD) 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 0 84 .77 78.29E-04 4.146173 %Study Var (%SV) 96.APPENDIX (d) Data Results for FARO arm (Square) ————— 12/21/03 11:44:35 AM ———————————————————— Welcome to Minitab.0094804 0.66 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.8548 29.114616 0.059440 0.51E-02 2.71 88. Gage R&R Study .92 100.79 15.66 24.85 39.0005267 0.129112 0.0009769 0.48 16.0087920 0.

04 0.60 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 16.63 16.70 Percent 16.67 16.61 16.02 0.01 0.59 16.04728 R=0.58 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 85 .62 16.61 16.00 0 LCL=0 16.70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator Sample Range 0.Gage R&R for FAROS16.65 50 16.60 16.66 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 16.58 0 Average UCL=16.03 0.66 16.05 0.65 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.68 16.63 Mean=16.65 16.64 16.66 FAROS16.01837 16.65 16.60 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 16.63 LCL=16.68 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 16.

15 44.0084053 0.40E-04 1.68 100.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 2 86 .0011511 0.76 15.81 39.00167 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 46.17 20.087306 0.35E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.15 4.24 73.18E-02 1.97158 2.07670 0.67726 2.046756 0.0003874 0.0023022 0.40 53.68 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 2.76511 P 0.89 21.060955 0.08E-03 1.119160 %Study Var (%SV) 68.27 100.57E-02 1.48E-04 1.70E-02 2.00014 0.24E-05 2.05E-03 9.06 51.31E-02 Study Var (5.0444449 MS 0.0029739 0.0267649 0.04E-02 5.15*SD) 0.053491 0.025984 0.0001401 F 7.87E-04 5.0069725 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS22.55E-05 8.32 26.081097 0.08E-04 2.Gage R&R Study .

65 22.67 22.585 22.60 22.64 22.635 22.06 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.Gage R&R for FAROS22.64 22.00 0 UCL=0.61 22.54 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 22.05 0.66 22.54 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 22.58 22.57 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE Mean=22.60 Average UCL=22.59 22.02 0.05071 22.64 22.605 22.645 22.68 FAROS22.04 0.62 22.615 22.575 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 87 .0197 LCL=0 22.03 0.62 LCL=22.69 22.665 22.68 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 22.625 22.59 22.69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.59 Percent 50 0 22.655 22.64 R=0.595 22.63 22.01 0.

56 30.30E-05 1.05E-02 3.0132681 MS 0.04 56.02 29.0016729 0.12 74.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS1.60E-02 2.62 100.0001589 0.43E-02 5.0000223 F 4.10E-03 6.1092 P 0.06 13.85 54.75E-03 7.15*SD) 5.75E-02 6.63a Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.55E-05 5.80E-03 7.5313 7.11 36.31E-02 Study Var (5.05E-05 4.94 100.09E-02 4.00094 0.71E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 1.0006358 0.18E-04 2.Gage R&R Study .00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.0028593 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 88 .0057223 0.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 69.74E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 83.60E-05 5.28 51.00594 0.54 55.23E-05 9.0013407 0.47E-02 3.66E-02 3.28E-03 1.0026 10.0033458 0.46 26.73E-03 9.

Gage R&R for FAROS1.63a

FAROS1.63a

Components of Variation

100

Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc:

By Part

%Contribution %Study Var

1.635 1.625 1.615 1.605 1.595 1.585

Percent

50

0

1.575

Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part

Part

1.635 1.625 1.615 1.605 1.595 1.585 1.575

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

R Chart by Operator

0.03

AMI

By Operator

KEN

DIANE

Sample Range

0.02 0.01 0.00 0

UCL=0.01699

R=0.0066

LCL=0

Operator AMI

DIANE

KEN

**Xbar Chart by Operator
**

1.64

AMI

**Operator*Part Interaction
**

KEN

DIANE

Sample Mean

1.63

1.63 1.62

Operator

AMI DIANE KEN

Average

1.62 1.61 1.60 1.59 1.58 0

UCL=1.618 Mean=1.611 LCL=1.604

1.61 1.60 1.59 1.58

Part

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

89

**Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method
**

Gage R&R for FAROS25.44

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction

Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total

DF 9 2 18 60 89

SS 0.132867 0.156968 0.117460 0.182209 0.589504

MS 0.0147630 0.0784840 0.0065256 0.0030368

F 2.2623 12.0272 2.1488

P 0.06711 0.00048 0.01423

Gage R&R

%Contribution (of VarComp) 87.82 40.42 47.40 31.92 15.48 12.18 100.00

VarComp 6.60E-03 3.04E-03 3.56E-03 2.40E-03 1.16E-03 9.15E-04 7.51E-03

StdDev (SD) 8.12E-02 5.51E-02 5.97E-02 4.90E-02 3.41E-02 3.03E-02 8.67E-02

Study Var (5.15*SD) 0.418335 0.283802 0.307345 0.252225 0.175623 0.155806 0.446408

%Study Var (%SV) 93.71 63.57 68.85 56.50 39.34 34.90 100.00

Number of Distinct Categories = 1

90

Gage R&R for FAROS25.44

FAROS25.44

Components of Variation

100

Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc:

By Part

%Contribution %Study Var

25.7 25.6 25.5 25.4

Percent

50

0

25.3

Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part

Part

25.7 25.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

R Chart by Operator

AMI

By Operator

KEN

DIANE

UCL=0.2409

Sample Range

0.2

0.1

R=0.09357

LCL=0

25.5 25.4

0.0 0

25.3

Operator AMI

DIANE

KEN

**Xbar Chart by Operator
**

25.65

AMI

**Operator*Part Interaction
**

KEN

DIANE

25.65

Operator

AMI DIANE KEN

Sample Mean

UCL=25.60 Mean=25.51

25.45

LCL=25.41

Average

25.55

25.55 25.45 25.35

25.35 0

Part

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

91

21E-03 9.53 46.0674 17.48E-05 5.04E-03 2.15*SD) 5.53 51.14E-02 5.81 2.03 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0378 1.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 92 .00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 9.00007 0.74E-03 7.12E-02 7.13E-05 3.31E-03 6.01E-02 3.76E-02 3.43E-03 6.34E-05 4.0011610 0.39E-02 Study Var (5.0023221 0.0032067 0.2751 P 0.95 52.11E-02 1.23682 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 48.0086276 0.47 100.0000681 0.08 100.0000534 F 14.19 43.90E-06 9.59 21.0012266 0.17E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 69.Gage R&R Study .0153829 MS 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS38.37 15.0009586 0.31E-02 3.90 71.92 27.64E-05 4.89E-05 1.95E-03 1.34 18.00000 0.94E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 9.

94 37.95 LCL=37.Gage R&R for FAROS38.93 37.925 0 UCL=37.96 37.92 37.97 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 37.95 37.03 FAROS38.955 37.03175 R=0.00 0 UCL=0.975 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 37.98 37.96 37.945 37.01 0.95 37.94 Average 37.91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.965 37.97 37.92 37.01233 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 37.94 37.935 37.96 37.96 Mean=37.03 0.97 37.93 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 93 .02 0.03 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var Percent 50 37.98 37.94 37.95 37.93 37.91 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 37.

63E-02 1.19404 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 3.14 4.42 98.40E-06 5.328 17.02 11.0002787 0.77E-03 8.39E-02 8.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 8.15*SD) 1.0000062 0.98 11.345 P 0.42 100.0001125 0.98E-03 1.51E-02 1.87 100.0023951 0.0000046 F 383.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 8 94 .58E-06 4.65E-04 2.64E-06 3.0002164 0.52E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 17.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS40.02E-02 9.16E-03 1.00006 0.93E-06 3.20 96.0221634 MS 0.49E-03 3.69 13.35E-07 2.319 1.66E-02 Study Var (5.11E-02 1.Gage R&R Study .0215558 0.93E-03 2.13 1.70 1.84E-03 7.31E-04 1.0001082 0.00000 0.44 1.74E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 2.24 0.34 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.

29 40.27 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 95 .32 40.009181 Sample Range 0.30 LCL=40.325 40.003567 40.34 FAROS40.265 0.000 0 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 40.28 40.305 40.295 40.285 40.32 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 40.26 0 Average UCL=40.28 40.005 R=0.275 40.31 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 40.31 40.27 40.30 40.29 40.30 Mean=40.Gage R&R for FAROS40.29 40.285 40.315 40.325 40.010 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.315 40.30 40.275 40.265 Percent 50 0 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 40.305 40.34 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 40.295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.

39E-04 4.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.10E-02 4.33 44.87999 9.0101024 0.59E-04 2.00000 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 53.63b Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.81 68.55 21.98 64.92E-02 2.159511 0.0146392 0.87 33.49 100.169710 0.47 20.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS1.104373 0.0002362 F 6.36E-04 8.11E-04 9.21751 P 0.Gage R&R Study .00122 0.09 11.03E-02 3.50E-04 4.0014684 0.00027 0.52E-02 Study Var (5.160800 MS 0.30E-02 1.55 41.029278 0.54E-02 2.232907 %Study Var (%SV) 72.10E-02 2.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 96 .090921 0.079144 0.05E-03 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 3.96972 6.09E-03 2.026431 0.014170 0.15*SD) 0.08 46.91 100.46 46.150126 0.107908 0.

6 0 1.7 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.642 Mean=1.60 1.02037 0.5 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1.5 0 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 .63b FAROS1.7 Percent 50 1.Gage R&R for FAROS1.55 1.621 LCL=1.05243 1.00 0 LCL=0 1.5 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 1.70 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 1.10 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.6 Average UCL=1.601 1.65 1.05 UCL=0.63b Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 1.6 R=0.

13 10.00000 0.26E-06 3.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS1.26E-06 4.0003141 0.2479 P 0.0034564 0.0022897 0.89 100.349 P 0.0311078 0.0311078 0.95E-02 2.03 1.14E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 5.06E-03 1.0006237 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 5 98 .81E-04 4.15*SD) 0.00665 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 8.0034564 0.11 7.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.Gage R&R Study .03 91.00000 0.7507 4.745 5.0337116 MS 0.0000278 F 99.0000347 0.94E-05 4.00 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.0001570 0.02547 0.04E-02 Study Var (5.0003141 0.80E-03 5.0001570 0.86 100.62 10.010624 0.42E-03 2.25522 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.08 1.0016660 0.029857 0.0337116 MS 0.0000294 F 117.010624 0.027903 0.13 95.5319 1.48 26.104837 %Study Var (%SV) 28.36E-05 2.06E-03 2.100496 0.

99 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Average UCL=1.025 1.045 1.00 0 UCL=0.065 1.055 1.02 0.01 1.04 1.00 FAROS1.01 1.02034 R=0.05 1.065 1.029 Mean=1.05 1.03 1.985 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.015 1.985 Percent Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1.Gage R&R for FAROS1.0079 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator Sample Mean 1.00 0.02 1.035 1.04 1.005 0.025 1.03 1.995 0.045 1.035 1.02 1.013 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 99 .021 LCL=1.055 1.00 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 50 0 1.03 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.99 0 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 1.015 1.00 0.995 0.005 0.01 0.

011779 0.14E-04 8.739 1.17 100.87 98.08407 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 3.011779 0.0000410 0.00 7.32 7.146957 0.62 96.00 0.38 100.00E+00 5.03 17.0073694 0.06E-05 2.04E-03 2.62 3.00 0.49142 0.531 0.149691 %Study Var (%SV) 19.0000607 0.0686457 MS 0.54E-05 5.0007389 0.85E-02 2.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 3.028482 0.62 0.91E-02 Study Var (5.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 7 100 .0000303 0.0015213 0.29E-03 0.91 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.87 0.025932 0.45E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 5.15*SD) 0.0000254 F 179.00E+00 2.53E-03 5.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS2.000000 0.00000 0.23E-06 0.619 P 0.Gage R&R Study .23E-06 8.29E-03 2.0663248 0.

04 3.96 2.98 2.91 FAROS2.998 LCL=2.01 0.95 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Average Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 101 .03 3.91 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 3.991 2.00 R=0.99 2.01 3.05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.03 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE Sample Range 0.05 Percent 50 3.00 2.95 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 3.97 2.95 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 3.02 0.00 0 2.005 Mean=2.00 0 UCL=0.0071 LCL=0 2.95 0 3.00 UCL=3.01828 3.02 3.Gage R&R for FAROS2.05 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 3.

execution aborted.1 ** Error ** No variation within part/operator subgroups.Gage R&R Study .ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS40. 102 .

80 72.51 12.204556 0.02 100.104014 Study Var (5.0110247 0.217645 0.38 35.63 34.60 19.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS145 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.94553 P 0.62150 1.097563 0.234075 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 0.15*SD) 0.09 16.06159 6.319626 0.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 1 103 .37 59.387678 0.185715 0.009519 0.036061 0.67 100.98 52.001786 0.001300 0.146000 0.340000 0.002066 0.045452 0.Gage R&R Study .0730000 0.535673 %Study Var (%SV) 93.67 43.889000 MS 0.0227284 0.042261 0.09151 0.010819 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Operator*Part Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 0.00699 0.003852 0.005667 0.70 40.02855 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 87.502449 0.075277 0.198444 0.062063 0.0056667 F 2.

2 0.6 144.7 144.Gage R&R for FAROS145 FAROS145 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 145.9 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 144.7 Mean=144.6 144.6 144.1 0.0 144.5 144.5 Percent 50 0 144.3003 Sample Range 0.1167 LCL=0 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 144.6 144.7 144.8 144.9 144.7 144.5 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 104 .4 0 Average UCL=144.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.9 144.4 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 145.8 144.6 LCL=144.0 144.3 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE UCL=0.0 0 R=0.8 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean 144.7 144.5 144.5 144.8 144.9 144.

40928 Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source Part Operator Repeatability Total DF 9 2 78 89 SS 0.07333 0.21 100.14E-03 8.46E-04 1.0000313 0.46E-04 8.81E-04 1.063 P 0.13E-02 %Study Var (%SV) 23.0000313 0.35E-03 6.0016418 0.0000103 0.47 22.93E-02 7.00000 0.25E-03 3.0147758 0.37 94.10 6.177 P 0.51 5.15E-07 1.00000 0.ANOVA Method Gage R&R for FAROS13.35E-02 1.15*SD) 1.0001858 0.0005827 0.0156069 MS 0.0000626 0.37 0.13 0.Gage R&R Study .0000626 0.92E-04 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation StdDev (SD) 3.06E-05 9.15E-07 7.67E-02 1.0147758 0.012 3.0000099 F 166.0156069 MS 0.66 6.78 Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source Part Operator Operator*Part Repeatability Total DF 9 2 18 60 89 SS 0.49 100.39E-02 Study Var (5.85E-06 7.630 3.0007685 0.00 Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operator Part-To-Part Total Variation VarComp 1.62E-02 4.10 97.04717 Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 5.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 6 105 .0000097 F 159.032 1.35E-03 4.0016418 0.

83 13.82 13.85 13.80 0 UCL=13.83 13.83 13.78 Components of Variation 100 Gage name: Date of study: Reported by: Tolerance: Misc: By Part %Contribution %Study Var 13.85 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Sample Mean Average 13.83 13.80 Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 106 .81 13.82 13.80 Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R Chart by Operator 0.85 AMI Operator*Part Interaction KEN DIANE 13.81 13.84 13.84 13.83 LCL=13.82 13.81 Percent 50 0 13.85 Sample Range UCL=0.01218 0.005 0.015 AMI By Operator KEN DIANE 13.004733 LCL=0 13.84 13.83 13.81 13.Gage R&R for FAROS13.78 FAROS13.80 Operator AMI DIANE KEN Xbar Chart by Operator 13.010 0.000 0 R=0.82 13.84 Mean=13.84 13.

- An online Calculator To Determine The Impact of Gage R&R on Process Capability Index.pdf
- Mec652_Chapitre_7(b)_Partie 2_Observations instantanee_Ete14.pdf
- Micouin06.pdf
- Introduction à l'IS.pdf
- Glossaire_IS.pdf
- precis.pdf
- L'IS, pourquoi, comment - Pourquoi l'IS.pdf
- L'IS pourquoi, comment - Les processus de l'IS.pdf
- AFIS - Glossaire de base de l'IS-V1.pdf
- L'IS pourquoi, comment - Les principaux concepts de l'IS.pdf
- 831-Forum-AFIS-Ingenierie-Systeme.pdf
- L'IS pourquoi, comment - Le déploiement de l'IS.pdf
- la_lf_genie_mecanique.pdf
- [Stanley_B._Gershwin]_Manufacturing_Systems_Engine(BookZZ.org).pdf
- cours-processus-production-120312183450-phpapp01.pdf
- 102566634-ChapitreII-Immplantation.pdf
- cours GP Emanuel Caillaud.pdf
- gestion_de_productioncours02-03.pdf
- implant_outils_v24w.pdf
- fonctionproduction.pdf
- CXG_050f.pdf
- 55847115-Gestion-de-Production.pdf
- capacite.ppt
- 53564146-Cours05.pdf
- 58296532-H2006-1-666469-Seance4-Gestiondelacapaciteetconceptiondel-Amenagement-Classe.ppt

- H1489
- MSA - 3a EDIZ
- GAGERR - Template
- Msa
- berisso010510.pdf
- Measurement System Analysis
- GageCrossed[1]
- Science Enginering Lab Report_Experiment 1 (Physical Quantities Aand Measurement)
- Measurements
- A Brief Tutorial on Recursive Estimation With Examples From Intelligent Vehicle Applications
- Project Grr
- Measurement System Analysis
- Measurement Least Count Zero Error Meter
- 6.2-MSA-Gauge-R&R
- MEM560 Topic 2_Metrology & Instrumentation
- TESA Highlights En
- 3.1.b.A LinearMeasurementUS.docx
- Measurements and Sources of Errors1
- MSA - Statgraphics
- 1258
- ABCQ Metrology Handbook
- Metrology Intro
- MSA Presentation by M Negi 31.01.09
- Dbs1012 Chapter 1 Physical Quantities and Measurement
- ER08-Edito-GlossaireEN
- Code of Measuring Practice - Amendments
- Intro Time Study
- How to Measure With a Microscope
- Special Offer 08
- Introduction to Metrology
- 2004wangj (1)

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd