Professional Documents
Culture Documents
^^^
CHAPTER
10
Measurement Systems
Analysis
R&R STUDIES FOR CONTINUOUS DATA
Discrimination, stability, bias, repeatability,
reproducibility, and linearity
Modern measurement system analysis goes well beyond calibration. A gage
can be perfectly accurate when checking a standard and still be entirely unac-
ceptable for measuring a product or controlling a process. This section illus-
trates techniques for quantifying discrimination, stability, bias, repeatability,
reproducibility and variation for a measurement system. We also show how to
express measurement error relative to the product tolerance or the process var-
iation. For the most part, the methods shown here use control charts. Control
charts provide graphical portrayals of the measurement processes that enable
the analyst to detect special causes that numerical methods alone would not
detect.
Note that on the control charts shown in Figure 10.1, the data plotted are the
same, except that the data on the bottom two charts were rounded to the nearest
25. The effect is most easily seen on the R chart, which appears highly stratified.
As sometimes happens (but not always), the result is to make the X-bar chart
go out of control, even though the process is in control, as shown by the control
charts with unrounded data. The remedy is to use a measurement system cap-
able of additional discrimination, i.e., add more significant digits. If this cannot
be done, it is possible to adjust the control limits for the round-off error by
using a more involved method of computing the control limits, see Pyzdek
(1992a, pp. 37^42) for details.
STABILITY
Measurement system stability is the change in bias over time when using a
measurement system to measure a given master part or standard. Statistical sta-
bility is a broader term that refers to the overall consistency of measurements
over time, including variation from all causes, including bias, repeatability,
reproducibility, etc. A systems statistical stability is determined through the
use of control charts. Averages and range charts are typically plotted on mea-
surements of a standard or a master part. The standard is measured repeatedly
over a short time, say an hour; then the measurements are repeated at predeter-
mined intervals, say weekly. Subject matter expertise is needed to determine
the subgroup size, sampling intervals and measurement procedures to be fol-
lowed. Control charts are then constructed and evaluated. A (statistically) stable
system will show no out-of-control signals on an X-control chart of the averages
readings. No stability number is calculated for statistical stability; the system
either is or is not statistically stable.
Once statistical stability has been achieved, but not before, measurement sys-
tem stability can be determined. One measure is the process standard deviation
based on the R or s chart.
R chart method:
R
^
d2
s chart method:
s
^
c4
BIAS
Bias is the difference between an observed average measurement result and a
reference value. Estimating bias involves identifying a standard to represent
the reference value, then obtaining multiple measurements on the standard.
The standard might be a master part whose value has been determined by a mea-
surement system with much less error than the system under study, or by a stan-
dard traceable to NIST. Since parts and processes vary over a range, bias is
measured at a point within the range. If the gage is non-linear, bias will not be
the same at each point in the range (see the definition of linearity above).
Bias can be determined by selecting a single appraiser and a single reference
part or standard. The appraiser then obtains a number of repeated measure-
ments on the reference part. Bias is then estimated as the difference between
the average of the repeated measurement and the known value of the reference
part or standard.
REPEATABILITY
A measurement system is repeatable if its variability is consistent. Consistent
variability is operationalized by constructing a range or sigma chart based on
repeated measurements of parts that cover a significant portion of the process
variation or the tolerance, whichever is greater. If the range or sigma chart is
out of control, then special causes are making the measurement system inconsis-
tent. If the range or sigma chart is in control then repeatability can be estimated
by finding the standard deviation based on either the average range or the aver-
age standard deviation. The equations used to estimate sigma are shown in
Chapter 9.
INSPECTOR #1
INSPECTOR #2
We compute:
Ranges chart
R 0:51
UCL D4 R 3:267 0:51 1:67
Averages chart
X 118:85
LCL X A2 R 118:85 1:88 0:109 118:65
UCL X A R 118:85 1:88 0:109 119:05
2
R&R studies for continuous data 331
The data and control limits are displayed in Figure 10.3. The R chart analysis
shows that all of the R values are less than the upper control limit. This indicates
that the measurement systems variability is consistent, i.e., there are no special
causes of variation.
Note that many of the averages are outside of the control limits. This is the
way it should be! Consider that the spread of the X-bar charts control limits is
based on the average range, which is based on the repeatability error. If the
averages were within the control limits it would mean that the part-to-part varia-
tion was less than the variation due to gage repeatability error, an undesirable
situation. Because the R chart is in control we can now estimate the standard
deviation for repeatability or gage variation:
R
e 10:1
d2
where d2 is obtained from Table 13 in the Appendix. Note that we are using d2
and not d2 . The d2 values are adjusted for the small number of subgroups typi-
cally involved in gage R&R studies. Table 13 is indexed by two values: m is the
number of repeat readings taken (m 2 for the example), and g is the number
of parts times the number of inspectors (g 5 2 10 for the example).
This gives, for our example
R 0:51
e 0:44
d2 1:16
332 MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
REPRODUCIBILITY
A measurement system is reproducible when different appraisers produce
consistent results. Appraiser-to-appraiser variation represents a bias due to
appraisers. The appraiser bias, or reproducibility, can be estimated by com-
paring each appraisers average with that of the other appraisers. The standard
deviation of reproducibility (o ) is estimated by finding the range between
appraisers (Ro) and dividing by d2 . Reproducibility is then computed as 5.15o .
and the measurement system variation, or gage R&R, is 5.15m . For our data
gage R&R 5:15 0:44 2:27.
INSPECTOR #1 INSPECTOR #2
Averages ! 118.845 1
Observe that when the data are arranged in this way, the R value measures the
combined range of repeat readings plus appraisers. For example, the smallest
reading for part #3 was from inspector #2 (124.2) and the largest was from
inspector #1 (124.9). Thus, R represents two sources of measurement error:
repeatability and reproducibility.
334 MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
R 1:00
UCL D4 R 2:282 1:00 2:282
X 118:85
LCL X A2 R 118:85 0:729 1 118:12
UCL X A R 118:85 0:729 1 119:58
2
The data and control limits are displayed in Figure 10.4. The R chart analysis
shows that all of the R values are less than the upper control limit. This indicates
that the measurement systems variability due to the combination of repeatabil-
ity and reproducibility is consistent, i.e., there are no special causes of variation.
Using this method, we can also estimate the standard deviation of repro-
ducibility plus repeatability, as we can find o Ro =d2 1=2:08 0:48.
Now we know that variances are additive, so
2 2 2
repeatabilityreproducibility repeatability reproducibility 10:3
R&R studies for continuous data 335
PART-TO-PART VARIATION
The X-bar charts show the part-to-part variation. To repeat, if the measure-
ment system is adequate, most of the parts will fall outside of the X -bar chart con-
trol limits. If fewer than half of the parts are beyond the control limits, then
the measurement system is not capable of detecting normal part-to-part vari-
ation for this process.
Part-to-part variation can be estimated once the measurement process is
shown to have adequate discrimination and to be stable, accurate, linear (see
below), and consistent with respect to repeatability and reproducibility. If the
part-to-part standard deviation is to be estimated from the measurement system
study data, the following procedures are followed:
1. Plot the average for each part (across all appraisers) on an averages con-
trol chart, as shown in the reproducibility error alternate method.
2. Conrm that at least 50% of the averages fall outside the control limits. If
not, nd a better measurement system for this process.
3. Find the range of the part averages, Rp.
4. Compute p Rp =d2 , the part-to-part standard deviation. The value of
d2 is found in Table 13 in the Appendix using m the number of parts
and g 1, since there is only one R calculation.
5. The 99% spread due to part-to-part variation (PV) is found as 5.15 p.
Once the above calculations have been made, the overall measurement sys-
tem can be evaluated. q
1. The total process standard deviation is found as t m2 p2 . Where
m the standard deviation due to measurement error.
2. Total variability (TV) is 5.15t .
3. The percent repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) is 100 m =t %.
336 MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
4. The number of distinct data categories that can be created with this mea-
surement system is 1.41 (PV/R&R).
Since the minimum number of categories is five, the analysis indicates that
this measurement system is more than adequate for process analysis or process
control.
Minitab offers two different methods for performing gage R&R studies:
crossed and nested. Use gage R&R nested when each part can be measured by
only one operator, as with destructive testing. Otherwise, choose gage R&R
crossed. To do this, select Stat > Quality Tools > Gage R&R Study (Crossed)
to reach the Minitab dialog box for our analysis (Figure 10.6). In addition to
choosing whether the study is crossed or nested, Minitab also offers both the
338 MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
ANOVA and the X-bar and R methods. You must choose the ANOVA option
to obtain a breakdown of reproducibility by operator and operator by part. If
the ANOVA method is selected, Minitab still displays the X-bar and R charts
so you wont lose the information contained in the graphics. We will use
ANOVA in this example. Note that the results of the calculations will differ
slightly from those we obtained using the X-bar and R methods.
There is an option in gage R&R to include the process tolerance. This will
provide comparisons of gage variation with respect to the specifications in addi-
tion to the variability with respect to process variation. This is useful informa-
tion if the gage is to be used to make product acceptance decisions. If the
process is capable in the sense that the total variability is less than the toler-
ance, then any gage that meets the criteria for checking the process can also be
used for product acceptance. However, if the process is not capable, then its out-
put will need to be sorted and the gage used for sorting may need more discrimi-
natory power than the gage used for process control. For example, a gage
capable of 5 distinct data categories for the process may have 4 or fewer for the
product. For the purposes of illustration, we entered a value of 40 in the process
tolerance box in the Minitab options dialog box (Figure 10.7).
Output
Minitab produces copious output, including six separate graphs, multiple
tables, etc. Much of the output is identical to what has been discussed earlier in
this chapter and wont be shown here.
R&R studies for continuous data 339
Table 10.3 shows the analysis of variance for the R&R study. In the ANOVA
the MS for repeatability (0.212) is used as the denominator or error term for cal-
culating the F-ratio of the Operator*PartNum interaction; 0.269/0.212 = 1.27.
The F-ratio for the Operator effect is found by using the Operator*PartNum
interaction MS term as the denominator, 0.061/0.269 = 0.22. The F-ratios are
used to compute the P values, which show the probability that the observed var-
iation for the source row might be due to chance. By convention, a P value less
than 0.05 is the critical value for deciding that a source of variation is signifi-
Source DF SS MS F P
Total 19 1304.43
340 MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
cant, i.e., greater than zero. For example, the P value for the PartNum row is 0,
indicating that the part-to-part variation is almost certainly not zero. The P
values for Operator (0.66) and the Operator*PartNum interaction (0.34) are
greater than 0.05 so we conclude that the differences accounted for by these
sources might be zero. If the Operator term was significant (P < 0.05) we
would conclude that there were statistically significant differences between
operators, prompting an investigation into underlying causes. If the interaction
term was significant, we would conclude that one operator has obtained differ-
ent results with some, but not all, parts.
Minitabs next output is shown in Table 10.4. This analysis has removed the
interaction term from the model, thereby gaining 4 degrees of freedom for the
error term and making the test more sensitive. In some cases this might identify
a significant effect that was missed by the larger model, but for this example
the conclusions are unchanged.
Source DF SS MS F P
Total 19 1304.43
Reproducibility 0 0
Operator 0 0
different sources. The StdDev column is the standard deviation, or the square
root of the VarComp column in Table 10.5. The Study Var column shows the
99% confidence interval using the StdDev. The % Study Var column is the
Study Var column divided by the total variation due to all sources. And the %
Tolerance is the Study Var column divided by the tolerance. It is interesting
that the % Tolerance column total is greater than 100%. This indicates that the
measured process spread exceeds the tolerance. Although this isnt a process
capability analysis, the data do indicate a possible problem meeting tolerances.
The information in Table 10.6 is presented graphically in Figure 10.8.
Linearity
Linearity can be determined by choosing parts or standards that cover all or
most of the operating range of the measurement instrument. Bias is determined
at each point in the range and a linear regression analysis is performed.
Linearity is defined as the slope times the process variance or the slope times
the tolerance, whichever is greater. A scatter diagram should also be plotted
from the data.
LINEARITY EXAMPLE
The following example is taken from Measurement Systems Analysis, pub-
lished by the Automotive Industry Action Group.
342 MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Reproducibility 0 0 0 0
Operator 0 0 0 0