1. bookVolume 18 (2018): Issue 1 (February 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1335-8871
First Published
07 Mar 2008
Publication timeframe
6 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Measurement System Analyses – Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility Methods

Published Online: 07 Mar 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 18 (2018) - Issue 1 (February 2018)
Page range: 20 - 27
Received: 10 Oct 2017
Accepted: 14 Feb 2018
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1335-8871
First Published
07 Mar 2008
Publication timeframe
6 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The submitted article focuses on a detailed explanation of the average and range method (Automotive Industry Action Group, Measurement System Analysis approach) and of the honest Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility method (Evaluating the Measurement Process approach). The measured data (thickness of plastic parts) were evaluated by both methods and their results were compared on the basis of numerical evaluation. Both methods were additionally compared and their advantages and disadvantages were discussed. One difference between both methods is the calculation of variation components. The AIAG method calculates the variation components based on standard deviation (then a sum of variation components does not give 100 %) and the honest GRR study calculates the variation components based on variance, where the sum of all variation components (part to part variation, EV & AV) gives the total variation of 100 %. Acceptance of both methods among the professional society, future use, and acceptance by manufacturing industry were also discussed. Nowadays, the AIAG is the leading method in the industry.

Keywords

[1] Hart, R.F., Hart, K.M. (1994). The evaluation of a measurement system. Production and Inventory Journal, Fourth Quarter, 22-26.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Antony, G.V., Knowles, G. (2000). A practical methodology for analyzing and improving the measurement system. Quality Assurance, 3 (3), 59-75.Search in Google Scholar

[3] International Automotive Task Force. (2016). Automotive quality management system standard. 4th Edition. IATF16949:2016.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation (AIAG). (1998). Quality System Requirements. 3rd Edition. QS-9000.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation (AIAG). (2008). Advanced Product Quality Planning and Control Plan (APQP), Second Edition. AIAG.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Hermans, J.E., Liu, Y. (2013). Quality management in the new product development: A PPAP approach. Quality – Innovation - Prosperity, 17 (2).10.12776/qip.v17i2.150Search in Google Scholar

[7] Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation (AIAG). (2010). MSA - Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA), Fourth Edition. AIAG.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Wheeler, D.J. (2006). EMP III - Evaluating the Measurement Process & Using Imperfect Data. SPC PRESS (Statistical Process Control).Search in Google Scholar

[9] Verband der Automobileindustrie e.V. (2011). VDA 5 – Vhodnost kontrolních procesů, 2. vydanie. Praha, ČR: Česká společnost pro jakost.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Klaput, P. (2014). Methodical approach to measurement system analyses. Dissertation Thesis, VŠB - Technical University of Ostrava, Faculty of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering. (in Czech)Search in Google Scholar

[11] Dietrich, E., Schulze, A. (2003). Eignungsnachweis von Prüfprozessen. Carl Hanser Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Kazerouni, A.M. (2009). Design and analyses of gauge R&R studies: Making decision based on ANOVA method. International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 3 (4).Search in Google Scholar

[13] Throne, J.L. (2008). Understanding Thermoforming. Carl Hanser Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Rolls-Royce (2013). Measurement System Analyses : How-to Guide. Version 6.1. Rolls-Royce plc., 53.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Healy, S., Wallace, M. (2011). Gage repeatability and reproducibility methodologies suitable for complex test systems in semi-conductor manufacturing. In Six Sigma Project and Personal Experiences. InTech.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Minitab. (2010). Minitab guideline of methods and formulas. Version 16.1.1.0. Minitab Inc.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Knowles, G., Vickers, G., Anthony, J. (2003). Implementing evaluation of the measurement process in an automotive manufacturer: A case study. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 19 (5), 397-410.10.1002/qre.533Search in Google Scholar

[18] Dusharme, D. (2011). An Interview with Donald J. Wheeler. Quality Digest, May 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Stamm, S. (2013). A comparison of gauge repeatability and reproducibility methods. Dissertation Thesis, Indiana State University, USA.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Pandiripalli, B. (2010). Repeatability and reproducibility studies: A comparison of techniques. Thesis, Wichita State University, USA.Search in Google Scholar

[21] SAS Institute. (2013). SAS/QC 13.1 : User’s Guide. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Search in Google Scholar

[22] BPI Consulting, LLC. (2014). Evaluating the Measurement Process - Part 1.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Wheeler, D.J. (2009). An honest gauge R&R study (rev.). In ASQ/ASA Fall Technical Conference, Manuscript No. 189.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Western electric rules. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_electric_rules.svg.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Wachs, S. How can an OC curve be used to manage the risk of undetected special causes?http://www.integral-concepts.com/docs/.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Wheeler, D.J. (2016). Good data, bad data, and process behaviour charts.http://asq.org/statistics/2003/01/good-data-bad-data-and-process-behavior-charts.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Ermer, S.D. (2016). Improved gage R&R measurement studies. Quality Progress, March 2006, 77-79.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Dietrich, E. (2011). Wo liegen die Unterschiede? Vergleich von MSA and VDA Band 5. QZ, 56 (6), 30-34. http://vda-qmc.de/fileadmin/redakteur/presse/QZ6_11_Vergleich_von_MSA_und_VDA_Band_5.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Standards Department VW. (2012). Capability of measuring processes (Consideration of measuring uncertainty in test processes). Standard VW 10119.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Krolczyk, J., Krolczyk, G., Legutko, S., Napiorkowski, J., Hloch, S., Foltys, J., Tama, E. (2015). Material flow optimization – a case study in automotive industry. Tehnički vjesnik – Technical Gazette, 22 (6), 1447-1456.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Nieslony, P., Krolczyk, G.M., Wojciechowski, S., Chudy, R., Zak, K., Maruda, R.W. (2018). Surface quality and topographic inspection of variable compliance part after precise turning. Applied Surface Science, 434, 91-101.10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.10.158Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo