The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)


Search the Elsmar Cove
Custom Search
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Follow Marc & Elsmar
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed  Marc Smith's Google+ Page  Marc Smith's Linked In Page   Marc Smith's Elsmar Cove YouTube Page  Marc Smith's Facebook Page  Elsmar Cove Twitter Feed
Elsmar Cove Groups
Elsmar Cove Google+ Group  Elsmar Cove LinkedIn Group  Elsmar Cove Facebook Group
Sponsor Links





Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

Howard's
International Quality Services
Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality

Related Topic Tags
true position, process capability, mmc (maximum material condition - gd&t)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 9th October 2001, 11:15 AM
mboteo
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Question How to calculate a True Position toleranced at MMC - Capability of True Position

Is there anybody having information of how to calculate a True Position toleranced at MMC (Maximum Material Condition).

Some have answered me to calculate it using the distance from the center. I do not agree with that since the true position is a two dimensional feature.
Also what about the MMC issue, which will change your tolerance depending on each piece.

S.

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10th October 2001, 09:03 AM
Paul F. Jackson Paul F. Jackson is offline
Involved - Posts

 
Registration Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canton, MI USA
Age: 59
 
Posts: 163
Thanks Given to Others: 2
Thanked 78 Times in 51 Posts
Karma Power: 71
Karma: 863
Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.
Last spring my article on the "Residual Tolerance Process Capability Model" got published in Quality magazine and I figured that the problem of including the geometric bonus tolerance in a capability evaluation had been solved. It has, I think, but not with the Residual Model and not with the "Adjusted True Position" that Glen Gruner published in Quality Engineering magazine in 1991 and also not with the "Percent-of-Tolerance" method that Marty Ambrose disclosed in the paper titled "Calculating MMC Cpk."

This summer I studied the three methods and discovered that they are all flawed. Each method creates a new value for variation by manipulating and combining variables for bonus amount and geometric deviation. I found that the variation of the resulting combination does not equal the combined separate variations. That led me to a new discovery.

All three of the methods tend to over-estimate the capability from a given data set by masking actual individual variations due bonus and geometric deviation. A big bonus value combined with a big geometric deviation can yield the same resultant "Adjusted True Position, Residual Tolerance, or Percent-of-Tolerance" as a smaller bonus value combined with a smaller geometric deviation. Glen Gruner's and my method yielded identical results for Ppk-Cpk. Marty Ambrose's method was different because it expanded each ratio to a common scale.

The problem statistically is "how to retain the actual variation of each variable in the equation for Ppk or Cpk." The answer is actually quite simple.

Ppk of a variable unilateral tolerance in excel format equals:

((USL+"Bonus" Xbar-"Geometric deviation" Xbar)/ 3(SQRT(VAR("Bonus")+ VAR("Geometric deviation"))).

For Cpk use "Bonus" Xbarbar, "Geometric deviation" Xbarbar and divide them by three times the square root of the sum of the squared estimated standard deviations derived by Rbar over d2 for both "Bonus" and "Geometric deviation."

Sorry that I couldn't just show the formulas. They wouldn't paste to this reply.

I am going to present this discovery at the "Applied Measurement & Inspection Technology" conference sponsored by the SME on October 23-25, 2001 in Detroit, MI. ***DEAD LINK REMOVED***

Unfortunately the conference publication states that I will present "The Residual Tolerance Process Capability Model." I hadn't discovered its flaw until after the conference was set up in May, 2001.

Last edited by Marc; 14th May 2008 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Dead link removed.
Thanks to Paul F. Jackson for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 10th October 2001, 10:55 AM
mboteo
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Very interesting stuff, Paul.

This started me thinking in the the direction of using Cpm's. Also I feel we need to be thinking two dimensional (since .002" in the 1st quadrant is not not the same as .002" in the 3rd one -- averaging these two will be .000" if the are perfectly in the opposite direction, while if we don't assume the 2 dimensions, the average will be .002").

So calculating a Cpm-X and Cpm-Y (Cpm for each of the axisses), would be:

Cpm(x)= (USL+"Bonus(x)" Xbar)-"Geometric deviation(x)" Xbar)/ 3 Std.dev.(x) from Target.
Same for Cpm(y)

Aggregated Cpm for both axisses would be
Cpm=SQRT(Cpm(x)+Cpm(y))

Just wanted to throw this at you. Feel free to critisize any flaw in my thinking.

Steven
  #4  
Old 10th October 2001, 11:06 AM
mboteo
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Correction. Formula should have been:

Cpm(x)= 2*(SL+"Bonus(x)" Xbar)/ 6* Std.dev.(x) from Target
  #5  
Old 10th October 2001, 12:22 PM
Paul F. Jackson Paul F. Jackson is offline
Involved - Posts

 
Registration Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canton, MI USA
Age: 59
 
Posts: 163
Thanks Given to Others: 2
Thanked 78 Times in 51 Posts
Karma Power: 71
Karma: 863
Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.Paul F. Jackson is appreciated, and has over 700 Karma points.
When the capability of the geometric tolerance is dependent upon feature size, it will become readily apparent to the process owner (using a variable tolerance capability equation) that targeting feature size at the center of its specification to maximize its capability indiscriminately is not a good strategy.

Targeting static-fits, clearance sizes, and boundary conditions (where the function is not influenced by varying sizes) toward the opposite material condition that is specified in the feature control frame will provide additional tolerance for the geometric specification. Of course the distribution for feature size will determine where that target will be. So if there were ever a reasonable use for Cpm it would be with feature sizes related to variable geometric tolerances.

Using Cpm for the variable unilateral geometric tolerance is not a strategic move since the target is always Zero.

If the ratio of consumed geometric deviation to available tolerance is relativley high, a better strategy would be to monitor and control the x and y coordinates of the geometric specification separately.

You would do this to distinguish between:

A process that is accurate (where the means of X and Y coordinate deviations are centered well at their basic dimensions but the associated distributions for X and Y are large or perhaps just one is large).

A process that is precise ( where the distributions for X and Y are small but the means are off-target, or perhaps just one is off target).

Since computing the resultant geometric deviation obscures the distributions for the separate coordinates, monitor and control the coordinates separately rather that attempting to monitor and control the resultant geometric deviation. If the individual coordinates are "in control" so will the resultant geometric deviation. Use the resultant geometric deviation to predict the process capability with respect to the geometric specification.

If the ratio of consumed geometric deviation to available tolerance is low, it isn't necessary to do the extra work.
Thank You to Paul F. Jackson for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC

Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?


Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
True Position Checking such as Bolt Hole Position w.r.t Center Bore on Wheels Kanagu Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 9 17th May 2011 07:29 AM
GD&T True Position interpretation - True Position FCF on a B/P QC Rick Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 9 25th April 2008 10:10 AM
How to Calculate a True Position on a Square Slot - GD&T Nuno Costa Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 9 19th December 2007 02:45 PM
Ppk/Cpk for geometrical true position of hole with MMC sinned Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Process, Machine, etc. 15 13th December 2006 09:59 PM
Bidirectional True Position Tolerance Call-Out for Holes for Process Capability Aitch Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7 7th September 2006 01:40 PM



The time now is 09:06 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


   


Marc Timothy Smith - Elsmar.com
8466 LeSourdsville-West Chester Road, Olde West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929
513 341-6272