The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities


Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links




Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Some Related Topic Tags
capability study (part dimensions from a process or machine), pull test, statistical analysis and studies, weibull analysis and plots (statistical analysis)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 19th July 2017, 02:29 PM
drew88

 
 
Total Posts: 3
Please Help! Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities

Hello,

New to the forum. I tried reading up on related topics but I can't seem to wrap my head around this. Hope someone can help me! Sorry if I have butchered the world of statistics because I am trying to learn as I go and it's just too confusing...

I have 6 sets of pull force data of plastic heat staked posts (destructive tensile testing). Understanding that I will have a lot of difficulty justifying that the measurement system is reliable, we needed to go ahead and test this in some way to establish some level of process/product compliance to specification. Each set of data represents a specific location on the same processed part (6 posts per part).

Started by running basic capability/histograms and found 3 & 5 are not normal. Seems that the best fit (non-transformation) is 3 parameter weibull. Since all 6 posts should be the same, I thought I would perform the non-normal analysis uni formally.

This generally makes all the Ppk values go up. In 3 cases, the p-value goes up considerably which means it is a better fit? In 3 other cases, normal distribution has a better p-value. Does this mean that Weibull can not be used or that it also fits with a lower confidence?

As far as interpretation of what these capability indices mean, does it matter that I have a single process represented by Weibull distributions with different parameters? I feel like this defeats the whole purpose of characterizing the statistical model.

Also, for my understanding and curiosity, why would I not always characterize a model (even if it is close to normal) as Weibull if the data can be more closely characterized by the 3 parameters?

Data attached for reference. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance!
Andrew
Attached Files: 1. Scan for viruses before opening, 2. Please report any 'bad' files by Reporting this post, 3. Use at your Own Risk.
File Type: xlsx pull test data.xlsx (9.7 KB, 30 views)

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 20th July 2017, 10:01 AM
Bev D's Avatar
Bev D

 
 
Total Posts: 3,600
Re: Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities

I'd like to understand the purpose of the capability study...are you doing this because of a Customer reporting requirement (if so which standard) or are you doing it to understand the capability for good of the product? The answer we would give you is quite different.


With destruct testing one approach to understanding measurement error in relationship to part variation is to perform a capability study on the parts. if the observed variation is capable (stable and within specification over a period of time) then your measurement system is also 'good enough' because the observed variation has both the measurement error and the part variation captured.

My more important question is how you collected the samples and how many components of variation you included. this is far more critical to a good capability study than the underlying distribution (which is really just an exercise in statistical math nor an informative quality study...)

I can see from your data that you have captured within piece but how are you capturing piece to piece (for example, is it 8 sets 5 sequential parts spread out over time or is it one set of 40 sequential parts?). Other components of variation that you should be interested in: set-up to set up of the staking operation, lot to lot of the plastic assemblies, lot to lot of the resin, and even operator to operator and equipment to equipment...

This data should also be plotted on a control chart - or multi-vari chart - to assess stability before doing any capability assessment....

It's not about the statistical math, it's about the performance of the process...
Thank You to Bev D for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #3  
Old 20th July 2017, 02:01 PM
drew88

 
 
Total Posts: 3
Re: Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities

Hi BevD,

Thanks for the feedback. This is to understand the capability of the part relative to our design specification (functional requirement).

For destructive testing error, how do we run a capability study on the parts without a system that we trust to do the measuring?

As far as the data shown, they are sequential parts from an assembly dial table (no operator influence, but several nests). Same batch of plastic parts as far as we have resolution to see.

In the I-MR charts, if a few are stable and a few are not stable, how should I interpret that (relative to normal distribution)? If by placing the same data into a non-normal Weibull distribution, they fit the I-MR model, does that mean it is stable?

Thanks.
  Post Number #4  
Old 20th July 2017, 03:32 PM
optomist1's Avatar
optomist1

 
 
Total Posts: 388
Re: Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities

are the parts from just one piece of equipment? Are the parts assembled during one operation or shift? Depending on the goal of this endeavor the question Bev alluded to earlier, you might want to ensure that the "parts" subjected to the destructive tests are indicative of the process as you know it; are there other machines/tools that are used to assemble the parts, are there other sources of components/materials.....etc.
  Post Number #5  
Old 20th July 2017, 03:56 PM
drew88

 
 
Total Posts: 3
Re: Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by optomist1 View Post

are the parts from just one piece of equipment? Are the parts assembled during one operation or shift? Depending on the goal of this endeavor the question Bev alluded to earlier, you might want to ensure that the "parts" subjected to the destructive tests are indicative of the process as you know it; are there other machines/tools that are used to assemble the parts, are there other sources of components/materials.....etc.
Parts were assembled during one shift through one production stream/machine stream. There are other assembly steps that occur prior to it, but this is as limited in variation as I can hope for.

The only known variation between the parts would be different nests and mold cavities. Never tried looking at the mold cavity route, but these samples are as production representative as they come.

Is it agreed that if I see generally normalized data on 4/6 data points, I should expect to continue seeing normalized trends from similar testing? Back to my original point, it doesn't make sense to analyze every stream with independent non-normal distributions (and weibull parameters) to 'force them to fit' a distribution?
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >

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
Emoticons 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
MiniTab 15 Reporting Capabilities Torque Guru Using Minitab Software 12 18th March 2011 11:10 AM
Interpreting a Normal Probability Plot WeepingDragon Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4 10th February 2009 12:46 PM
XRF Capabilities - Correlating 2 different XRF machines - Ni/Au parts FPT2001 Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 7 25th July 2008 12:17 PM
Determining whether a process yeild is normal or non-normal distribution? niotusen Six Sigma 10 4th November 2005 09:54 AM



The time now is 09:31 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"