- Angular contact spherical plain bearings - GE50-SW.pdf
- Integrated Algebra Chapter 16-7
- 173 Armox 440t Uk Data Sheet
- EBearings (EFNLB-18-180).pdf
- SE-747
- Measurement_Systems_Analysis_Lab_Discuss.pdf
- MS 76-1972
- User Manual for IP & MIC Creation
- Fits and Tolerances
- M7Q1
- IS 10086 - 1982 (Reaff 1999)
- TOLERANCIAS_PZA_FUNDICION
- DIN 1685
- MS SAIL Tolerances
- ASTM B 88 - 03
- C.1 M & TE Control Procedure
- Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Linear regression analysis
- STAT 3008 Outline
- Ft Mba Section 3 Regression Sv(1)
- Multiple Regression Part 2
- Audit 04
- Mercado 2 Ingles
- Causan impact using bayes
- Regression 2
- JIS G3462.pdf
- Temp Sensor Chiller
- Functional Tolerancing & Annotation
- 00-r15
- Correlation
- Correlation Regression Relationship Analysis 1233772232553257 1
- The cat ate the rat
- Measurement System Analysis With Attribute Data - Bower
- Randomization in Designed Experiments - Bower
- Some Misconceptions About the Normal Distribution - Bower
- Some Misconceptions About Confidence Intervals - Bower
- When To Use Fisher’s Exact Test - Bower
- One Sample T-Test Using MINITAB - Bower
- Two-Sample T-Test & Randomization Test - Bower
- Capability Analysis With Non-Normal Data - Bower
- Alphabetical Order
- Paired T-Test Using MINITAB - Bower
- Some Misconceptions About R2 - Bower
- The Future of Internet
- Cpk & Ppk - Bower
- Process Capability Analysis Using MINITAB (II) - Bower
- Some Comments on Historical Designed Experiments - Bower
- Process Capability Analysis Using MINITAB (I) - Bower
- Evaluating the Usefulness of Data by Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility - Bower
- Confidence Intervals for Capability Indices Using Minitab - Bower
- Some Comments on the Robustness of Student t Procedures - Bower
- Using Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) Charts - Bower
- Why We Don’t Accept The Null Hypothesis - Bower
- Using CUSUM Charts to Detect Small Process Shifts - Bower
- Interaction Effects in Designed Experiments - Bower
- Some Comments on Control Charts With Large Subgroup Sizes - Bower
- Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Using Minitab - Bower
- Why Divide by N-1 - Bower
- A Comment on MSA With Destructive Testing - Bower
- Sample Size Determination for the Test of One Proportion - Bower
- Control Charts With Large Subgroups - Bower

This is the eighth in a series of articles about MSA. The focus of this article will be on assessing the measurement reproducibility between two measurement systems that must measure the same characteristic. Does the following scenario seem familiar? An operator performs an online test on a product. The test shows a failure to meet specifications. This is an expensive product, so the line supervisor ta es the part to an online tester located on an ad!acent line and retests it. This time it passes. The supervisor instructs the operator to go ahead and use the part. "oth of them lose confidence in the first measurement device. "ut which one provided the correct result? There are several approaches that may be used to assess the reproducibility of two measurement devices. #ne approach that is commonly used when the measurement devices are fully automated is to perform a standard $%$ study and replacing the #perators with the Measurement Devices. $eproducibility is now tester to tester reproducibility. The operator&part interaction becomes the tester&part interaction. 'hile this approach does (uantify the reproducibility of the two devices, it has the drawbac of providing little additional information if a significant difference between the two is noted. )t is also limited to fully automated gages. *ou do have the option of adding gage as a third factor +,arts, #perators, -ages. and analy/ing the resulting designed experiment using Analysis of 0ariance +A1#0A.. A second approach is nown as the )so2plot. This is a very simple graphical approach. An x2y plot is constructed with e(ual scales, and a 345 line is drawn through the origin. ,arts are selected throughout the expected measurement range. 6ach part is measured using both gages. 6ach part is then plotted on the graph using the value measured by one gage on the x2axis and the value measured by the other gage on the y2axis. )deally, the coordinates of all parts will lie on the 345 line. )f the points fall consistently above or below the line, one gage is biased in respect to the other. The )so2plot provides an excellent visual assessment of the reproducibility of the two gages, but does not provide (uantifiable results. A linear regression analysis of the data used to create the )so2plot will provide (uantifiable results. )deally, the regression constant should e(ual /ero and the slope should e(ual one. The regression output will provide the relationship between the two gages as well as confidence and prediction limits. A third approach is the "land Altman plot. ,arts are selected throughout the expected measurement range. 6ach part is measured using both gages. 7alculate the differences between the gages +-age8 9 -age:., the mean of each pair of measurements and the mean of the differences. ,lot the differences on an x2y plot with the differences on the y2axis and the mean of the paired measurements on the x2axis. Draw a hori/ontal line for the mean of the differences. Draw two more hori/ontal lines at ; < 2 8.=> standard deviations of the differences. Approximately =4? of the differences should fall within the limits. The mean line indicates the bias between the two gages. A trend indicates that the bias changes with the si/e +a linearity difference between the gages.. An increase +or decrease. in the width of the pattern with si/e indicates that the variation of at least one of the gages is dependent on si/e. )f the variation within the limits is of no practical importance, the two gages may be used interchangeably. Do not overloo the differences between gages when evaluating your measurement systems. *our operators will be (uic to discover gages that inconsistently accept and re!ect product between the gages. They will then lose confidence in them and the test itself.

**Within product variation (WPV)
**

This is the eleventh in a series of articles on MSA, and the first in advanced MSA topics. The focus of this article will be on how to handle within product variation (WPV). WPV is significant variation in the for of a product. Significant eans that it detectable b! !our easure ent device. "#a ples of variation in for include shaft dia eter variation due to lobes, or a taper$barrel$hourglass shape% thic&ness variation due to parallelis and

easure ent s!ste . 't cannot be isolated using the standard A'A( (age )*) stud!. etc. what do !ou do 'f the W'V varies rando l! on the product (i. =Tol. • 6reate (raph9 and interpret si ilar to (raph1. The Measure ent b! W'V graph shows differences in the location easured on the part. 'f the -perator p: value is greater than . "ither cop! the for at used in the attach ent. . The A'A( MSA anual touches on this and presents a )ange ethod for calculating the W'V effect. it definitel! i pacts the easure ent s!ste .s (eneral /inear Model ((/M).e. • 'nterpret the Session Window the sa e as a standard MSA for =SV.. or suspect it fro high )epeatabilit! variation or an -perator5Part interaction. • 'dentif! specific locations on the product to be easured b! all operators. the Measure ent b! W'V graph and the Part 5 W'V graph. These can be selected at rando or b! design. then loo& at the p:value for the -perator.. 'f the W'V is predictable b! location. 3ou can follow along b! opening the attached P40 file. While technicall! part of the product not the easure ent s!ste . • Perfor stud! • Anal!8e following the attached file. re ove it also. deter ine whether WPV is a potential issue. or use Minitab to create a full factorial design for 7 factors. ' planned to de onstrate it using Minitab.ow that !ou understand the i pact of W'V on !our with that &nowledge> 't depends. When ' first decided to start this blog. and the interaction shows whether this location to location difference varies b! part.ore. !ou can ta&e this into account and i prove !our )*) results b! specif!ing easure ent locations in !our wor& instructions. 3ou a! &now this alread! fro process &nowledge. )eview the p:values and re ove all 9:wa! interactions with p:values greater than . WPV can have a significant i pact on the acceptabilit! of a easure ent s!ste . The graphs must be created using the Graph commands and some creativity and the metrics will have to be calculated by storing results and manually performing the calculations. 'f selected b! design.<. /ast advice? Although it is possible to re ove the effects of W'V fro !our )*) results. ' reco end starting with all factors and 9:wa! interactions in the odel.-VA approach that allows an evaluation of all of the interactions with WPV.<. SP6 . 3ou will see two new graphs. • 0irst. the new Minitab 12 ade this easier with the "#panded (age )*) Stud! feature. ' show an A.. it is unpredictable). Note: Everything I show here can be duplicated with earlier versions of Minitab using GLM. but re+uires a special approach. 0ortunatel!.. 'f all interactions involving the -perator are re oved. • 6reate a (age Stud! wor&sheet. this ust be entered as a 0i#ed factor into Minitab. but it will alwa!s affect !our easure ents. • 'nterpret (raph1 the sa e as a standard MSA.. !ou cannot prevent it fro affecting !our easure ent s!ste . 3ou can recogni8e it as part of !our total variance e+uation (ac&nowledge ents to bobdoering).

it will still have an i pact on function.g. H.G Same resolution +e.H4. if relevant +e. micrometers. there are certain criteria that must be met@ • • • Same gauges Same product characteristics Same tolerances or process variation depending on use of gauge Another. rac and pinion gear. calipers.. H. etc.and capabilit! results. inside.G Same display +e. step anvils for calipers... less restrictive approach that could be used@ • Similar gauges • Similar product characteristics • State the smallest tolerance or process variation +standard deviation. outside. Same/similar product characteristics: 7onservative approach@ Same features Alternate approach@ Similar features +e. This is the tenth in a series of articles about MSA. vernier. a shaft with lobes a! not fit a bearing correctl!. • Same anvils. and perform MSA studies by family.G Same range +e. or by affecting the ease with which an operator can handle the part and gauge together. Same tolerances or process variation: 7onservative approach@ . so beware.g. etc.. step etc. width. H 9 > inch. within a specified range. digital.. etc. The focus of this article will be on minimi/ing the number of MSA studies by creating families of gauges. F 9 point bore gage. The impact of si/e will usually manifest itself through changes in the within2part variation. diameter.g. dial.g. H 9 8: inch. "e cautious when establishing the range. • Same technology.g.. *ou may create families of gauges. • • • • Same type +e.HHH8.g.g. if relevant +e. *ou may need to perform a series of MSAs to establish how large this range may be. that the gage family may be used to measure and still achieve an acceptable $%$ result DetEs cover each of these in more depth@ Same/similar gauges: 7onservative approach@ Same brand and model of gauge Alternate approach@ Similar gauges +brand or model not relevant.. 0or e#a ple.. scaled. electrostatic capacitance technologies for calipers.B 'aitC 1ot so fastC 'hat constitutes a family of gauges? 'ell.. A fre(uent (uestion in the 7ove is@ AMust ) perform an MSA on every gauge<part combination?B The answer is@ A1o.. etc..

. . and ) will give you my but simply by thin ing the problem through rationally. • Scenario 2. )f they leave the other specification blan . This would tend to !ustify using the whole range. 7reate a record for each gauge family that clearly describes the gauges.7. right answer. Minimum Hardness@ ) am using the example used by Minitab in the above lin . and to not increase over . .erform the MSA and associate it with the gauge family record. you are not going to strive for infinite hardness. This is probably because there is no one. resolution and anvils. or by clearly specifying the type. The focus of this article will be on discussing the proper approach to evaluating $epeatability and $eproducibility as a ? of Tolerance when the tolerance is one2 sided. Minitab will calculate ?Tolerance the same way as if they entered a two sided specification +thin 7p. and ) recalled several prior posts that had all as ed similar (uestions. characteristic and si/e range. There will be practical and economical reasons for you to IhoverI a safe distance above the DSD. The gauges could be identified by listing all serial numbers. thus moving farther and farther away from the KSD. document it. Minitab users have two options. there is some incentive to drive for smaller and smaller levels of flatness. This is not based on any research or statistics. display. not what is convenient or easy.MSA manual is silent on this and no other IguruI that ) am aware of has spo en on it. with mixed responses. )n this scenario. state the smallest tolerance at which an acceptable ? Tolerance may still be achieved • )f gauges are used for S.• • Same tolerance if gauges are used for inspection Same process variation if gauges are used for S. )n this situation. )t forced me to really thin the matter through from the perspective of what is the intent of the ?Tolerance metric. The A)A. A recent post as ed this (uestion. . Maximum Flatness@ Jero is a natural boundary and there is a maximum allowable flatness specification. state the smallest process variation standard deviation at which an acceptable ? Study 0ariation may still be achieved #nce you have created a gauge family.7 Alternate approach@ • )f gauges are used for inspection. Dets loo a few scenarios.. Minitab will calculate ?Tolerance using F & the total $%$ and the difference between the study mean and the specification +thin 7p . )f they enter a natural boundary as the second specification +or the range between the boundary and the specification. %Tolerance for One sided Specs This is the ninth in a series of articles about MSA. range. • Scenario 1. you will conceivably utili/e the entire tolerance spectrum. or entering H as a DSD..resumably. gauge calibration )D numbers. See the full explanation here.

you will also AhoverB a safe distance below the maximum force and not decrease over time. Therefore. &he lower specification limit is "". zero represents a perfectly straight beam with no warping. Measurements of this warping have an upper specification limit to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable degrees of warping.uals the difference between them. However. and +&olerance e. . and choose the appropriate approach based on the situation. 'hen evaluating (age #)# for processes with only one specification limit. *ne statistic that is directly affected by specification limits is the +&olerance statistic. or greater than the upper specification limit. these measurements have no lower specification limit because they cannot take values less than zero. ns observatioall of mean the is 3 and limit. 'hen a process has two specification limits. a lumber mill cuts beams to be perfectly straight. ensuring the variability due to (age #)# and part%to%part variation do not push the process output beyond the specification limits. Maximum activation force@ The same logic could apply to a maximum activation force for a push button. 1. )t may ma e more sense to forget about the ?Tolerance entirely and use the -auge . Minitab defines the one%sided tolerance as the absolute value of the difference between the single specification limit and the mean value of all measurements. Minitab calculates the +&olerance statistic by dividing the one%sided process variation by the one% sided tolerance. it is important for the analysis to reflect this property. ion specificatsingle the is where . )n this scenario.uals the study variation of a given variation source divided by this tolerance. this method is invalid when you provide a single specification limit. it would ma e more sense to use the Minitab approach. and %Tolerance is not calculated. +) will casually overloo the fact that you cannot enter infinity into the KSD field.xls and MSA Frd 6d A1#0A. In fact. • Scenario 3.44 5 % 3 1 0ariation /tudy &olerance + If the mean of all observations is less than the lower specification limit. which compares the tolerance with the study variation. some processes have a lower specification limit. However.time. the Minitab approach of leaving the DSD field blan would also ma e sense. Technical Support Document How Minitab calculates %Tolerance when a One-Sided Tolerance is entered for Gage R&R Many processes operate with only a single specification limit. but no upper specification limit.erformance 7urve approach +see my files MSA Frd 6d. the measurements are deviating strongly from their acceptable range. 2. the tolerance e.xls in my earlier blogs. ) recommend that you thin carefully about your specific situation.. Ideally. "ottom line. Minitab uses the following method. For example. Minitab calculates a one%sided process variation by dividing the /tudy 0ariation statistic by 1. )n this case. but no upper specification limit exists.. ikewise. there would no force left to reopen the switch. the tolerance should amply encompass the study variation. ! cutlery manufacturer must ensure the hardness of its knife blades exceed "" on the #ockwell $%scale. but the beams often warp during manufacture. This approach provides the probability of accepting a product for each specific measurement as you near the specification. )f you strove for /ero activation force on a conventional spring2 loaded design. For these cases.

lot the regression line and the =4? confidence limits for the regression line on the scatter plot. This is essentially a calibration issue. nonlinear ias 9 The bias changes in a nonlinear fashion throughout the measurement range.MSA Frd edition manual. etc.lot the individual and average biases on the y2axis of a scatter plot versus the values of the standards on the x2axis.g. )f the linearity is acceptable within the range actually used for measurement.. The focus of this article will be on measurement linearity.ossible cause@ measurement scale is nonlinear +gage issue. • The y 9 intercept and slope of the regression e(uation should each be approximately e(ual to /ero. • !on"constant. pressure bias +deflection under pressure is proportional to si/e.lot the bias N H line for all reference values.. this will not always be the case. the gage may be accepted for .!inearit" This is the third in a series of articles about MSA. . There are several possible scenarios@ • Constant ias 9 All measurements are offset by the same amount regardless of si/e. and at :4?. • .. The statistical analysis is only necessary for borderline cases. • .ossible causes@ measurement scale is proportionally small<large +gage issue. • . linearity will be statistically e(ual to /ero. . These values may be statistically evaluated if desired per the formulae in the A)A.. 7alibrate the measurement device and repeat the linearity study. gage wear in one section of the measurement range. • 0erify that the "ias N H line lies within the . A good calibration system will chec the calibration of a measurement device at a minimum of three locations +both extremes and the middle of the measurement range. Lor practical purposes the graphical analysis is sufficient. particularly with electronics. • !on"constant. A thorough linearity study will chec at least five locations +e. both extremes... 4H? and M4? of the measurement range. Lor this reason bias and linearity are often combined into a single study. The results can be analy/ed using statistical software such as Minitab. )deally.erform a regression analysis using the individual biases as the response and the reference values as the predictor variable.. • .. or with the attached file as shown. All measurements must be made randomly to minimi/e the appraiser recalling previous results. Dinearity is simply measurement bias throughout the entire range of the measurement device. Oowever. 6ach standard is measured repeatedly at least ten times. Standards such as used in calibration should be used instead of actual parts unless the parts can be measured with less measurement variation with a different measurement device. linearl# increasing/decreasing ias 9The bias either increases or decreases as the location within the measuring range increases. • 7alculate the bias for each individual measurement and the average bias for each reference standard +or part. thermal bias +thermal expansion<contraction is proportional to the si/e of the dimension. worn standards.<2 =4? confidence limits of the regression line.

art 8. a 82sample t2Test may be used to determine the statistical significance of the bias provided the re(uired sample si/e is established in advance using the maximum allowable bias and desired alpha and beta ris s. "ias is the difference between the actual value of a part and the average measured value of that part. This must be clearly noted on the gage and the practice documented in the appropriate (uality procedures.art 8. "ut did you reali/e that the steel shaft diameter that you are measuring may also be understated depending on whether you used the ratchet thimble on the micrometer or not? • Cosine error ias 9 1ot !ust for 7MMsC Test indicators.a specified range of measurement. The magnitude of this change in si/e may or may not add significant bias depending on the materials involved. • %ressure ias 9 Materials that are compressible such as rubber or foam are notoriously difficult to measure due to the deformation of the part under pressure. are also susceptible to cosine error. As ) stated in . The solution is to ta e multiple measurements of the standard and compare the average of these measurements to the standard before ma ing a determination of the magnitude of the bias and ma ing an ad!ustment. The focus of this article will be on measurement bias. There are also other less obvious sources of bias from which a calibration system. This overloo s the fact that ta ing a second or third measurement could provide different results than found in the first measurement. but also electrical. The reason for this is simple. less commonly used these days. if the device has sufficient resolution to see it. #ias This is the second in a series of articles about MSA. 'hat may be less commonly nown is that the measurement device will also change si/e with temperature. • Humidit# ias 9 7ertain materials will swell or shrin with changes in moisture content. )n most cases. a measurement device that has bias will consistently over or under state the true value of the part. ) will go through a few examples of bias that you could encounter@ • Measurement device ias 9 As we discussed in . )n other words. Some less e(ual calibration programs may ta e a single measurement of a standard and then ma e a determination on whether there is measureable bias in the gage. An extremely important aspect of calibration performed by internal lab is normali/ing both the standard and the gage at standard temperatures before calibration. The failure mode of a wea calibration system is to base the calibration on a single measurement. 6ven better. sometimes referred to as accuracy. • $emperature ias 9 Many products will change si/e with changes in temperature. 7alibration is intended to detect and correct any measurement bias found. $esistance changes with temperature affecting many electrical measurements. calibration and measurement uncertainty are outside of the scope of this series and is better left to experts in those fields. no matter how well designed and implemented. a separate study of measurement bias is not performed if the measurement device has been calibrated. 7ritical measurements should be made at standard humidity conditions after a lengthy normali/ation time. ) will state that all calibration programs are not created e(ual. Oow often does the appraiser carry the measurement device in a poc et or in their hand warming it up to body temperature? Temperature not only affects mechanical dimensions. all measurements vary to some extent. Did you reali/e that the ball on the tip of a 7MM probe can introduce potential bias? All touches made with the tip must be made perpendicular to the surface . will not protect you. Oowever.

1ote@ This may be enhanced by adding standards<master parts at the low and high ends of the expected measurement range.. )f the control chart is out of control. )f the control chart is in a state of statistical control throughout the study period. There is no numerical acceptance criterion. The larger the sphere used. StdDevrepeatability N $bar<d&: +d: may be used if the number of subgroups is greater than :H. analy/e the patterns. max. or a master sample part that is midrange of the expected measurement range. Does the shaft need to slip into a hole? The average diameter reported by a 7MM will understate the effective diameter of the shaft.. A stability study is a series of repeated measurements ta en under actual usage conditions. ta e daily or wee ly measurements. The purpose is to verify that the bias of the gage does not change over time due to environmental conditions or other causes. A stability study is performed by selecting a measurement standard +ideal. • Single points out of control could be the result of a gage that is overly sensitive to operator techni(ue. This is where calibration falls short from an MSA perspective. Oow do you measure the diameter of a shaft +randomly. The subgroups are comprised of the F 24 measurements and measure short term repeatability of the measurement device. if ambient temperature variation is expected to be the ma!or source of variation. Stability is simply measurement bias throughout an extended period of time. air pressure. end. min. the influence of temperature would be expected to appear as cyclical trends that coincides with the ambient temperature.. the gage stability is acceptable. • Lor example. 7alibration is a series of snapshots widely spaced in time ta en under controlled environmental conditions. %&% . Lor example.of the part. • )f the gage operates on plant utilities +e. air pressure.g.g. • Measurement procedure ias 9 *our measurement procedure can also introduce bias. #n a periodic basis. The focus of this article will be on measurement stability.. measure the standard F 9 4 times.? 'hat about the location on the shaft +middle. ma e hourly chec s throughout the day. multiple locations.. abrupt shifts could occur based on plant demand on the utilities +e. • $uns could be the result of different measurement methods A stability study will also provide an estimate of the within operator repeatability of the gage. )t may measure in specification and not fit into a ring gage. 'hen this is not done the diameter of the sphere will introduce what is called cosine error. average of max2min. Analy/e the data using Pbar<$ or Pbar<s control charts +use separate charts if you measured at the low<middle<high ends of the expected measurement range. the larger the cosine error.? The effect of this bias depends on the application of the part. using 7MM. )f the source of variation is expected to be long term drift. The period should be based on nowledge of what may influence the measurement system. Sta$ilit" This is the fourth in a series of articles about MSA.

<T $atio. for process control. for statistical studies +e. D#6. )f your software has this option. This article will deal solely with the AIAG MSA methodology. &eproduci ilit# is the measurement variation observed when multiple operators measure one part multiple times. 'ill it be used for part inspection to a tolerance. Most suppliers have no option other than to comply. fully automated measurement devices that measure the same characteristic.7 charts. ? Study 0ariation +i. 'perator # %art (nteraction is a situation where the result of an operatorEs measurement techni(ue is influenced by the part itself. Lor example. such as Minitab. #perator AEs measurements are not affected by the burr. etc. Two shafts out of ten have burrs on the ends. #perator " measures at one end of the shaft. The AIAG methodology is the methodology required by many customers.g. the change in bias over the tolerance spread is nown. entering the process StdDev from a capability study or calculated from S. Some will recommend that parts representing the full spread of the tolerance be used. )f a gage linearity study has been performed. two operators measure a shaft diameter using techni(ues that are identical in all respects except one... )f the gage is used for part inspection or for statistical tests. )t is vital that the parts selected for the study reflect the actual variation of the process. use it. particularly in the automotive industry. #perator "Es measurements are affected by the burr. 'hat is $epeatability? 'hat is $eproducibility? 'hat is an #perator by . $%$ studies focus on measurement variation. There is no e(uivalent in calibration to $%$. )f the software does not have the feature. allow the entry of the historical StdDev of the process. linearity studies and stability studies have all focused on measurement bias. This is where calibration completely separates from MSA. manual calculations using the . *et another example is a semi2automated measurement device that is manually loaded..e. 'hile this does not hurt. 6ach station is dimensionally uni(ue and the difference contributes to measurement variation. bias studies. DetEs first start with definitions.. )f a gage linearity study has not been performed and there is a linearity issue an $%$ study will not detect it. This will result in an interaction between the operator and the part itself.. )f the gage is used solely for part inspection. The focus of this article will be on measurement repeatability and reproducibility commonly referred to as a gage $%$ study. I will deal with other approaches in a later article. Whether you agree with it or not. 6ach device has a slightly different measurement bias and contributes to the measurement variation. Depending on the measurement system. ?-$$. the selection of parts is not critical because the part variation is not included in the calculation of the $%$ metric. it is not really necessary.art interaction? &epeata ilit# is the measurement variation observed when a single operator measures one part multiple times. ?Tolerance +i. 7alibration. That is.. Another example is multiple. #perator A ta es measurements at the midpoint of the shaft length. the StdDev of the parts e(uals the StdDev of the process. Some statistical pac ages. a measurement device may consist of a fully automated measurement device comprised of multiple stations. a hypothesis test. The resulting measurement is influenced by the manner in which the product is loaded into the fixture. Lor example. the selection of parts is critical because the part variation is part of the calculation of the $%$ metric. A1D how the MSA study is designed $eproducibility may also be the measurement variation observed when multiple measurement stations or devices measure one part multiple times..e. it is a standard approach and has widespread acceptance. 6ach operator that loads the product has a slightly different techni(ue for loading that influences the measurement variation.This is the fifth in a series of articles about MSA. . capability study. or for a combination of these? This is very important because it influences the selection and (uantity of parts needed for the $%$ study. %art Selection The first step in an effective $%$ study is to determine the use of the gage itself.

use the A1#0A method. Q= The 8H<F<F approach provides very good estimates of the total variation and the repeatability. The total number of measurements should be maintained near =H.g. The least reliable estimate of variation will be the $eproducibility because it has the smallest degrees of freedom. MQ Total 0ariation +=H measurements. +hat method do ( use* )n the MSA manual. The focus of this article will be on assessing the measurement reproducibility between two measurement systems that must measure the same . Do not handpic the best operators. if +and only if. = . . Source of 0ariation degrees of freedom +n28.art interaction. is available and used as described in the previous section. This is to prevent potential measurement bias caused by an operator remembering a previous measurement and consciously or unconsciously ad!usting the next measurement to match. )f $eproducibility is adversely affected by the use of different methods. )f you have software available. : . There is no $eproducibility component in that situation Measurement of %arts . we need to loo at how the data are used by the A1#0A calculations. but the A1#0A method can detect a potential #perator x . )s this always the best approach? 'hat flexibility do we have in modifying this? To answer this (uestion..arts should be introduced randomly to each operator by an independent party that is not involved in the actual measurements. "oth methods will provide very similar results.arts +8H parts. 5 AStd4ev)*) $ Std4evTotal VariationB Std4evTotal Variation @ SC)TAStd4ev)*)D9 E Std4evPart VariationD9B Manuall! substitute the Std4ev fro a capabilit! stud! for Std4evPart Variation Ho) man# operators. Select the operators randomly.arts should be measured using the same method that will normally be used. Do not use personnel that will not perform the measurement tas . Selection of 'perators Always use the actual operators that will perform the measurement. )t provides additional information. an independent estimate of part variation +such as from a capability study.historical value are still possible as followsI = Stud! Variation @ 1. )f there is significant within2part variation in form that adversely affects $epeatability. trials and parts do ( use* The recommended standard is to have three operators measure ten parts three times each. it is better to run fewer trials in order to maintain or increase the number of operators. continued in next log entr# Co'parison of T(o )a*es This is the eighth in a series of articles about MSA. $eproducibility +F operators.. The number of parts may be reduced. )f concessions must be made.ure 6rror +$epeatability. perform the study with that operator only.. complex analytical e(uipment. The only compelling reason for using the $ange method is if you must perform manual calculations. The $ange method uses simpler math. there are two optional methods@ the $ange method and the A1#0A method. you need to now that also. you need to now that. )f only one operator performs the measurement tas +e.

arts are selected throughout the expected measurement range. 'hile this approach does (uantify the reproducibility of the two devices. They will then lose confidence in them and the test itself. An increase +or decrease. so the line supervisor ta es the part to an online tester located on an ad!acent line and retests it. This is an expensive product.arts are selected throughout the expected measurement range. the two gages may be used interchangeably. *our operators will be (uic to discover gages that inconsistently accept and re!ect product between the gages. The operator&part interaction becomes the tester&part interaction. Draw two more hori/ontal lines at . the coordinates of all parts will lie on the 345 line. "ut which one provided the correct result? There are several approaches that may be used to assess the reproducibility of two measurement devices. )deally. )f the variation within the limits is of no practical importance. An x2y plot is constructed with e(ual scales.characteristic. A third approach is the "land Altman plot.. "oth of them lose confidence in the first measurement device. The )so2plot provides an excellent visual assessment of the reproducibility of the two gages. $eproducibility is now tester to tester reproducibility. )t is also limited to fully automated gages. Do not overloo the differences between gages when evaluating your measurement systems. it has the drawbac of providing little additional information if a significant difference between the two is noted. A linear regression analysis of the data used to create the )so2plot will provide (uantifiable results. < 2 8. one gage is biased in respect to the other. Draw a hori/ontal line for the mean of the differences. Approximately =4? of the differences should fall within the limits.. and analy/ing the resulting designed experiment using Analysis of 0ariance +A1#0A. The regression output will provide the relationship between the two gages as well as confidence and prediction limits. A trend indicates that the bias changes with the si/e +a linearity difference between the gages. the regression constant should e(ual /ero and the slope should e(ual one. The supervisor instructs the operator to go ahead and use the part. . *ou do have the option of adding gage as a third factor +. )deally. )f the points fall consistently above or below the line. and a 345 line is drawn through the origin. 6ach part is measured using both gages.. The mean line indicates the bias between the two gages. This time it passes. .lot the differences on an x2y plot with the differences on the y2axis and the mean of the paired measurements on the x2axis. A second approach is nown as the )so2plot. This is a very simple graphical approach. 6ach part is then plotted on the graph using the value measured by one gage on the x2axis and the value measured by the other gage on the y2axis. the mean of each pair of measurements and the mean of the differences. in the width of the pattern with si/e indicates that the variation of at least one of the gages is dependent on si/e. but does not provide (uantifiable results. 7alculate the differences between the gages +-age8 9 -age:. #perators. . Does the following scenario seem familiar? An operator performs an online test on a product. -ages. . #ne approach that is commonly used when the measurement devices are fully automated is to perform a standard $%$ study and replacing the #perators with the Measurement Devices.=> standard deviations of the differences. 6ach part is measured using both gages.arts. The test shows a failure to meet specifications.

- Angular contact spherical plain bearings - GE50-SW.pdfUploaded byEnrico
- Integrated Algebra Chapter 16-7Uploaded byRedmondWA
- 173 Armox 440t Uk Data SheetUploaded byovk123
- EBearings (EFNLB-18-180).pdfUploaded byMarcelino Canales Garcia
- SE-747Uploaded byRoohian Ali
- Measurement_Systems_Analysis_Lab_Discuss.pdfUploaded byPatrice Andamo
- MS 76-1972Uploaded byRasya Fieza
- User Manual for IP & MIC CreationUploaded byShazwan Zaki
- Fits and TolerancesUploaded byarulvasanth_30011980
- M7Q1Uploaded byMeda
- IS 10086 - 1982 (Reaff 1999)Uploaded byG.Ramesh
- TOLERANCIAS_PZA_FUNDICIONUploaded byGuero Teo
- DIN 1685Uploaded byKanniappan Raman Kannan
- MS SAIL TolerancesUploaded byAmirthasubash Rajendran
- ASTM B 88 - 03Uploaded bycarlos37
- C.1 M & TE Control ProcedureUploaded bySivaram Kumar
- Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Linear regression analysisUploaded bySillyBee1205
- STAT 3008 OutlineUploaded byEmerald Lam
- Ft Mba Section 3 Regression Sv(1)Uploaded bycons the
- Multiple Regression Part 2Uploaded bykinhai_see
- Audit 04Uploaded byaaqipaper
- Mercado 2 InglesUploaded bysofia
- Causan impact using bayesUploaded byajjvv
- Regression 2Uploaded byNur Syahirah 신 애
- JIS G3462.pdfUploaded byhbook
- Temp Sensor ChillerUploaded bypradeep_tyagi80
- Functional Tolerancing & AnnotationUploaded bySteve
- 00-r15Uploaded byBernard Owusu
- CorrelationUploaded byRizzah Mae Soriano Raguine
- Correlation Regression Relationship Analysis 1233772232553257 1Uploaded bypandaprasad

- The cat ate the ratUploaded bytehky63
- Measurement System Analysis With Attribute Data - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Randomization in Designed Experiments - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Some Misconceptions About the Normal Distribution - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Some Misconceptions About Confidence Intervals - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- When To Use Fisher’s Exact Test - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- One Sample T-Test Using MINITAB - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Two-Sample T-Test & Randomization Test - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Capability Analysis With Non-Normal Data - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Alphabetical OrderUploaded bytehky63
- Paired T-Test Using MINITAB - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Some Misconceptions About R2 - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- The Future of InternetUploaded bytehky63
- Cpk & Ppk - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Process Capability Analysis Using MINITAB (II) - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Some Comments on Historical Designed Experiments - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Process Capability Analysis Using MINITAB (I) - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Evaluating the Usefulness of Data by Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Confidence Intervals for Capability Indices Using Minitab - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Some Comments on the Robustness of Student t Procedures - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Using Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) Charts - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Why We Don’t Accept The Null Hypothesis - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Using CUSUM Charts to Detect Small Process Shifts - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Interaction Effects in Designed Experiments - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Some Comments on Control Charts With Large Subgroup Sizes - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Using Minitab - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Why Divide by N-1 - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- A Comment on MSA With Destructive Testing - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Sample Size Determination for the Test of One Proportion - BowerUploaded bytehky63
- Control Charts With Large Subgroups - BowerUploaded bytehky63