The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Cpk Formula seems off, need help!?
Please read this thread...
Software update
Cpk Formula seems off, need help!?
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Cpk Formula seems off, need help!?

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
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
cpk (related to process capability)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 25th July 2017, 10:26 AM
Aleforge

 
 
Total Posts: 4
Thank You! Cpk Formula seems off, need help!?

This is driving me nuts. I have not completed many CPKs before and previously I have used a template to calculate each data set. It was setup for only 30pc inspections, but the new customer needs a 35pc. So I attempted to modify my excel sheet to incorporate the extra parts. However I am getting weird CPK results.

For instance I have one sample that only deviates .002 from the nominal (tol is +/- .005). However my CPK number is coming out as .8468. That does not seem right to me? As I mentioned I am fairly new to CPKs in general and relied solely on a template that I did not create.

(ugh site won't allow me to link drop box file)

I was under the impression that "good" CPKs should hover around the 1.5 mark.

Thank you VERY much!

If anyone WILL take a look at the file please let me know and I will PM it.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 25th July 2017, 12:29 PM
Bev D's Avatar
Bev D

 
 
Total Posts: 3,606
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

without seeing the data I would venture a guess that the example you have given is due to chunky data. chunky data is data that has very few possible results compared to the range of the variation. (for example if the range of variation goes from .001 to .005 and the resolution of the gage is in .001 you will have chunky data) Chunky data results in an overstated standard deviation which would then result a smaller Cpk.
Thanks to Bev D for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #3  
Old 25th July 2017, 12:46 PM
Aleforge

 
 
Total Posts: 4
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

OK, so I just edited the results and spread them around more. And the Cpk dropped down to a .3937.... All of the measurements still are inside the tolerance, but tilting towards both ends. Each time I changed one the Cpk dropped.

On my second set of measurements I have a Stdev of only .0009 , the above mentioned is a .0020 now. The .0009 Stdev one is giving me a Cpk of 1.7363

/sigh

Thank you for helping. I wish I could link the file in here. This is driving me insane, and I have a customer breathing down my back (and starting to look like an idiot). =(
  Post Number #4  
Old 25th July 2017, 01:03 PM
howste's Avatar
howste

 
 
Total Posts: 5,061
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

Here's the file that Aleforge wanted to post:
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 CAPA WTH.xlsx (21.0 KB, 117 views)
Thanks to howste for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #5  
Old 25th July 2017, 01:37 PM
howste's Avatar
howste

 
 
Total Posts: 5,061
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

Your data in the first column are all on the low side of the tolerance. The Cp value looks good, but the process average needs to be shifted to get a good Cpk.

If the process is centered on the nominal, the Cpk would equal the Cp.

Last edited by howste; 25th July 2017 at 01:42 PM.
Thank You to howste for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #6  
Old 25th July 2017, 01:52 PM
Miner's Avatar
Miner

 
 
Total Posts: 4,335
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

While you definitely have chunky data due to measurement resolution, the bigger issue is that the process for feature A is not centered on the nominal, but is shifted to the lower spec limit.
Attached Thumbnails
Cpk Formula seems off, need help!?-process-capability-sixpack-report-jpg  
Thank You to Miner for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #7  
Old 25th July 2017, 02:20 PM
Aleforge

 
 
Total Posts: 4
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

OK, so I shifted all of them between .279 to .281 and now my CPK is 2.429 and CP 2.608 as you said it would.

I suppose I am confused on how this works and had some misconceptions. For instance I assumed as long as your in tolerance you would have a higher CPK.

Which leads me to guess in order to get a good Cpk you need to have the part dimensions balanced out (like a see-saw)? Although the farther they are spread, the lower Cpk you end up with correct?

SO... was the first number I came up right, considering they were tilted all one way?


One thing I noticed is I have one Cpk coming in around 5.578. I suppose it's right but that leads me to wonder how high a Cpk can go up? (too lazy to change all my numbers dead on to see).

I really appreciate the help, it makes a lot of sense now. I finally feel I can move forward with some confidence.
  Post Number #8  
Old 25th July 2017, 02:55 PM
howste's Avatar
howste

 
 
Total Posts: 5,061
Re: CPK formula seems off, need help!?

If you look at the bell-shaped normal curve on Miner's post, you can see that part of the distribution is under the lower specification limit. The calculations you made are based on a sample from the total population of parts, which are estimates of the population. If you measured and plotted, for example, 1000 part readings from the same process without adjustment (assuming that it's normal) it should look like the normal curve and you would actually find that some parts are below the lower specification limit.

Statistically speaking, a Cpk of 1.0 would show up if your process center is 3 standard deviations from the closest of an upper or lower spec limit. A Cpk of 1.33 would be 4 standard deviations away, and a Cpk of 1.67 would be 5 standard deviations away. The farther you are from the spec limits, the higher the probability is that you will have no bad parts.
Thanks to howste for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
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
Does anyone have the GRR Formula? Philiswinning Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1 20th May 2013 05:38 PM
Linear Regression Formula with Four Variables to a Power Regression Formula nickcali825 Using Minitab Software 2 20th July 2012 10:29 PM
Total Variation Formula - Can someone provide a source for this formula MasterBB Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 11 16th January 2010 10:05 PM
Destructive Gage R&R Spreadsheet - Old MSA formula (5.15s) vs New formula (6s) yepezyepez Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3 11th March 2008 12:59 PM
MSA third edition - The formula 1.41*(PV/GRR) ? DJN Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 10 20th April 2006 04:37 PM



The time now is 02:03 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"