MSA strategy

[DavidB1991]

Hello everyone,

I am asking you for a little hint about MSA. I plan to completely change the approach on this issue. So far, we have conducted MSA for each new launch (each type of measurement tool appearing in the control plan), but with the increase in the number of new projects, the topic has become very time-consuming and burdensome, not to say impossible. I want to approach the matter in such a way as to minimize the number of analyzes carried out while maintaining compliance with the IATF. The number of analyzes will be smaller, but I will be reliable.

I have several points that are not entirely clear.

1. Let's assume that we purchased a 3D machine in 2015 and started measuring a product A. The R&R test results were below 10% so the measurement system is acceptable. In 2020, we have a new launch of a product from the same group. Can we attach the MSA analysis prepared in 2015 to confirm the compliance of the measurement system?

2. Another issue is the understanding of the clause 7.1.5.1.1 of the IATF 16949 standard "for each type of control, measurement and test equipment system specified in the control plan." How to understand the type of control? As I understand it, the type of control is e.g. 0-150 caliper measurement, measurement with a 3D machine, measurement with a measuring arm. In the above-mentioned case, using a 3D machine, we measure the following characteristics:
A) Flatness 0.15 mm between d91.40 and d92.50 mm - d1 mm ruby ball stylus,
B) Diameter d 91.17 mm - cylindrical shank d3 mm,
C) Height 2.7 mm - measuring pin with ruby ball d1 mm,
D) Diameter at point A 101.80 mm - measuring pin with ruby ball d1 mm,
E) Diameter at point B 101.80 mm - stylus with ruby ball d1 mm, Is it sufficient to provide the RR for the measurement from sub-item A to confirm the compliance of the measurement system ?.

3. We have calipers with different ranges: 0-150mm, 0-200mm, 0-300mm, 0-500mm, 0-600mm. Should we consider each caliper as a different type of control in this case? In my opinion, yes.

4.Measurement with a caliper 0-150 mm can be performed in 4 ways: jaws for external measurements, jaws for internal measurements, depth gauge extension and measuring the difference in length using flat surfaces on the fixed and movable jaws. Can all the above-mentioned methods be treated as one type of control?

5.Using a micrometer 0 - 25 mm 0.001 mm, we measure the thickness of the tapes during delivery. Let's assume that we mainly measure tapes with a thickness of 0.8 mm, 1 mm, up to a maximum of 3 mm. Hypothetically, a thickness of 10 mm appears in the new project. Can MSA for 0.8mm thickness measurement provide proof of measurement system compliance for 10mm thickness measurement? I mean, should the measuring range be taken into account when analyzing the MSA?

Many thanks for help.

 

[Miner]

I have about 20 years of automotive experience, but it was all prior to IATF, so I cannot guarantee that the following will be accepted today. You are on the right track. This is the concept of using gage families. I have written about this previously in my MSA blog series, so you may find it useful.

Please read the linked post. Then if you have additional questions, you can ask them here.

 

[Johnson]

Hello,

I try to provide my personnel input for your reference.

The following is quoted from "IATF 16949:2016 – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) " published in IATF website.
Question 6:
7.1.5.1.1 Measurement system analysis
QUESTION: Are MSA studies required for each instrument or device?
ANSWER: No. A complete statistical study on each single piece of equipment is not required. Instruments with the same characteristics (e.g. measurement range, resolution, repeatability, etc.) can be grouped and a sample instrument (representative of the gauge family) can be used for the statistical study.

Based on IATF 16949 FAQ and my experience , the following are comments to your questions:
1. Same 3D machine purchased in 2015 and 2020. MSA for 2015 is representative for 2020 machine. But you need to do calibration for both 2015 and 2020 machine for sure.
2. Firstly, clause 7.1.5.1.1 of the IATF 16949 standard， I read "for each type of inspection...“ not "control". May be you quoted new revision ?
If you measure all A-E characteristics only use 3D machine, you may just do to do MSA for 3D machine by selecting one characteristics like A. But the perfect way is you select A-E for MSA, but I don't think it's mandatory and economic way. But if you use also gage like caliper , you also need to do MSA for caliper.
3. Calipers with different ranges. You need to do MSA for all 5 ranges. IATF FAQ says "measurement range",
4. You just need to select the one you used most frequently like external measurement. But it's perfect if you do all features.
5. You can select one dimension to do MSA.

My experience, either the third party auditors and customers only audit if you do MSA for all measuring equipment ( family ). None of them really dig so deep technically.

My comments is based on the assumption the MSA practice is compliance to IATF 16949 standards and meet general customers expectation. But it is your decision how you select the measuring characteristics and its range to ensure your measuring equipment are capable of achieving repeat and reproductive result for your product.

Johnson

 

[DavidB1991]

Hello,
You're right, it should be "inspection" - I made mistake in translation.

Many thanks for help. I'll go that way. This sort of approach to MSA is reasonable and should be acceptable for all auditors. If not, we have continuous improvement

 

[AMIT BALLAL]

MSA study for each development project won't be required for IATF. But do consider it for special characteristics.