Cpk for attribute data? Performing SPC on capacitors - Capacitance measurement

M

M Caruso

#1
A customer has given us new requirements for performing SPC on capacitors we will be making for them. The requirements ask for us to collect data and calculate our Cpk. No big deal I think, until I read the requirements more closely. They want data collected and Cpk calculated on a capacitance measurement; I can do that. BUT, then then want data and Cpk calculated for whether the capacitors meets the voltage requirement, pass/fail. Can Cpk be calculated for this? :confused:
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
R

Rob Nix

#2
Since the Cpk calculation requires a "standard deviation", which in turn requires variable data, the answer is NO, you cannot calculate Cpk for attritbute data.

The problem is, and I see it often, is that customers do a lot of "cut-and-paste" when establishing requirements (specs) for new products. We sometimes receive specs for a new testing machine (e.g., torque or pressure decay) that specify a Cpk < 1.67. All it does is test. GR&R may apply; but Cpk does not. So, what do we do?

Bring it to the customer's attention! Questions regarding requirements should be brought up during contract review. But even if the problem is discovered afterward, explain the situation to the customer - they may very well agree with you that it was an "oops". At the very least, they should explain to you what their true intention is.

I hope this helps a little.
 

Al Rosen

Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
M Caruso said:
A customer has given us new requirements for performing SPC on capacitors we will be making for them. The requirements ask for us to collect data and calculate our Cpk. No big deal I think, until I read the requirements more closely. They want data collected and Cpk calculated on a capacitance measurement; I can do that. BUT, then then want data and Cpk calculated for whether the capacitors meets the voltage requirement, pass/fail. Can Cpk be calculated for this? :confused:
Could it be that they want it for the leakage current at the rated voltage?
 

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#4
I agree with Rob - the requirement as quoted makes no sense and needs to be discussed with the customer.

To go one step further, perhaps you could suggest an improvement. For example, perhaps the cap should work up through 250 V. The pass/fail test might be to simply connect the cap to 250 V and see that it works - that would not work for a Cpk calculation. You could test many caps this way and find a percent defective and then state something like "this defect rate is equivalent to Cpk = x (assuming normally distibuted data)."

Alternatively, you might destructively test the caps by ramping up the voltage slowly until they do fail. That would give you continuous variable that could be used to calculate a Cpk value. It would be a more difficult test and be destructive, but it would produce a Cpk number (if that is truly important to the customer).

Pass/Fail voltage testing:
+ simple
- large sample size required
- gives only a "pseudo Cpk" value

Ramped voltage testing
+ smaller sample size
+ produces a true Cpk
- destructive
- more complicated test.


Just my $0.02.


Tim F
 
R

roland_lu

#5
Pass/Fail voltage testing:
+ simple
- large sample size required
- gives only a "pseudo Cpk" value

Ramped voltage testing
+ smaller sample size
+ produces a true Cpk
- destructive
- more complicated test.


Just my $0.02.


Tim F[/QUOTE]

Great suggestion Indeed! :applause:

I have had another case. One of the parts we make is automotive fuel tank support straps. The drawing calls for the spot weld strength's mean minus 3 times deviation > certain amount of Newton. The part is a safety item, and the drawing identifies the spot weld strength as a critical characteristic and we need to monitor it through SPC.

The problem is we could never get weld strength readings and its deviation, for the strap material broke before the weld did when we destruct the samples. What we got is material's tensile stength and its variation. In PPAP package we pointed it out, our customer still asked us to report the "characteristic's" Cpk. For us, the weld strength is just a pass/fail case (actually never failed). Eventually we submitted the strap's strength Cpk instead of weld stength, customer did not challenge it. So until today we keeps monitoring through 'SPC' the strap tensile strength.

Any comments?
 
M

M Caruso

#6
Thank you all for your replies. I just needed to make sure that some new statistical method wasn't introduced since I finished school only 10 years ago. I was looking ahead during my schooling and decided to minor in Statistics to complement my Engineering degree. This actually was a big factor in getting my first job right out of college. Anyway.....

From reviewing the specification that was submitted with the requirements, all that is required is that SPC be maintained on major characteristics. I believe someone identified these major characteristics and boilerplated the requirements without reviewing. All requirements repeatedly call for a cert with Cpk and data.
I am going to be contacting the customer and suggest that we keep a p chart on the working voltage characteristic.
We already do 100% testing for each characteristic the customer is asking for us to track. We do it in a pass/fail manner, but some things such as capacitance can be measured and recorded, however the voltage test is strictly a pass/fail test. To change the nature of the voltage test would impact the cost to the customer significantly. Intentionally destroying units is usually done as a proof of concept or during qualification testing but not on a regular basis.
As I read the customers specification, I question why the customer did not consult us first anyway. Their specification has a paragraph that states, "Suppliers shall concur with the use of SPC as described in the individual SPC detailed requirement." Anyway, I will get this straightened out so that all will be happy here and at our customer.
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#7
roland_lu said:
Great suggestion Indeed! :applause:

I have had another case. One of the parts we make is automotive fuel tank support straps. The drawing calls for the spot weld strength's mean minus 3 times deviation > certain amount of Newton. The part is a safety item, and the drawing identifies the spot weld strength as a critical characteristic and we need to monitor it through SPC.

The problem is we could never get weld strength readings and its deviation, for the strap material broke before the weld did when we destruct the samples. What we got is material's tensile stength and its variation. In PPAP package we pointed it out, our customer still asked us to report the "characteristic's" Cpk. For us, the weld strength is just a pass/fail case (actually never failed). Eventually we submitted the strap's strength Cpk instead of weld stength, customer did not challenge it. So until today we keeps monitoring through 'SPC' the strap tensile strength.

Any comments?
I wish I could give you an idea but I'm just not well-versed enough in weld strength testing.

FWIW-
My comment is I think you're on a slippery slope. If a weld should fail in the field (the strap stays in one piece) and your customer comes back at you, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is a "CC" and customers get amnesia when suppliers don't have approved documentation. I know I would be very uneasy about this.
 
R

roland_lu

#8
Bill Ryan said:
I wish I could give you an idea but I'm just not well-versed enough in weld strength testing.

FWIW-
My comment is I think you're on a slippery slope. If a weld should fail in the field (the strap stays in one piece) and your customer comes back at you, you don't have a leg to stand on. This is a "CC" and customers get amnesia when suppliers don't have approved documentation. I know I would be very uneasy about this.
Thank you very much for your comments.

The thing is the test method is specified by the customer, and the weld strength is better than the strap strength with no exception so far for over 1200 samples, and the strap strength is close to 2 times of the required weld strength, everybody except me feels comfortable. We can establish that the weld strength average is good, but no way we could know the its actual number and its variation with the specific test method. I am sure the weld will not fail, but I am not sure if we did it right.

I hope that somebody could give me some ideas.

:thanx:
 

Tim Folkerts

Super Moderator
#9
roland_lu,

Here are a few thoughts that come to mind.

1) Could you reinforce the straps just for testing? Perhaps attach 2 or 3 straps to the same base so you could pull 2 or 3 times harder before the straps break? Or use thicker straps or straps of a different material?

Of course, if this affects the welds themselves, then the measurements of weld strength wouldn't be representative of the original welds and the study would be invalid.


2) There would be ways to work backwards from the failure data (or lack-of-failure data in this case) to get a bound on possible mean & st dev for the data

You know that 1200 have been tested and none have failed. Working backwards, it can be shown that if 99.75% of welds would pass the test, then there is just a 5% chance of not seeing any failures. If 99.62% of welds would pass the test, then there is just a 1% chance of not seeing any failures.

Or the other way around,
* you are 99% sure that at least 99.62% of the welds are stronger than the strap.
* you are 95% sure that at least 99.75% of the welds are stronger than the straps.

From there, it would be possible (making assumptions like a normal distribution which may not be especially accurate) to get a limit on the possible values of Cpk.


3) In the spirit of accelerated lifetime testing from reliability engineering, make a series of welds at intentionally poor settings. Perhaps you could do 30 parts at 70 % of the normal current and test those. Then do 30 parts at 80% of the normal current. Then do 30 parts at 90% of the normal current.

Then you could say something like
* at 70%, the weld had a strength of 100 +/- 20, which would give a Cpk of 0.5
* at 80%, the weld had a strength of 150 +/- 30, which would give a Cpk of 1.0
* at 90%, the weld had a strength of 250 +/- 30, which would give a Cpk of 2.2

We don't know the actual Cpk at 100% power, but it must be at least 2.2.


Just a few stray thoughts...

Tim F
 
Last edited:
R

roland_lu

#10
Tim Folkerts said:
roland_lu,

Here are a few thoughts that come to mind.

1) Could you reinforce the straps just for testing? Perhaps attach 2 or 3 straps to the same base so you could pull 2 or 3 times harder before the straps break? Or use thicker straps or straps of a different material?

Of course, if this affects the welds themselves, then the measurements of weld strength wouldn't be representative of the original welds and the study would be invalid.


2) There would be ways to work backwards from the failure data (or lack-of-failure data in this case) to get a bound on possible mean & st dev for the data

You know that 1200 have been tested and none have failed. Working backwards, it can be shown that if 99.75% of welds would pass the test, then there is just a 5% chance of not seeing any failures. If 99.62% of welds would pass the test, then there is just a 1% chance of not seeing any failures.

Or the other way around,
* you are 99% sure that at least 99.62% of the welds are stronger than the strap.
* you are 95% sure that at least 99.75% of the welds are stronger than the straps.

From there, it would be possible (making assumptions like a normal distribution which may not be especially accurate) to get a limit on the possible values of Cpk.


3) In the spirit of accelerated lifetime testing from reliability engineering, make a series of welds at intentially poor settings. Perhaps you could do 30 parts at 70 % of the normal current and test those. Then do 30 parts at 80% of the normal current. Then do 30 parts at 90% of the normal current.

Then you could say something like
* at 70%, the weld had a strength of 100 +/- 20, which would give a Cpk of 0.5
* at 80%, the weld had a strength of 150 +/- 30, which would give a Cpk of 1.0
* at 90%, the weld had a strength of 250 +/- 30, which would give a Cpk of 2.2

We don't know the actual Cpk at 100% power, but it must be at least 2.2.


Just a few stray thoughts...

Tim F
Thank you very much, Tim.

Sorry to response later.

Option 1, is not feasible.
Option 2, I am still not comfortable.
Option 3 is a very good suggestion, for I did not think in that direction (blind spot), though I will not go for lower weld parameter setting, I could just weld one spot (customer design is 2 and 3 at each end). I hope one spot weld will be weaker than the strap then.

That way I may hopefully establish the weld strength Cpk or Ppk. However, we are required to monitor its variation during regular production, it means I will have resistance from production people. :bonk:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Is Cpk required for all Attribute Data Special Characteristics? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
R Method to compute Cpk for Attribute Data? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3
G Cpk, Subgrouping, and Can Attribute Charts Monitor Ongoing? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
V Attribute np Charts and Cpk Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 7
B Attribute capability indices - Cpk and/or Ppk value for an attribute type of feature Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 7
M Attribute Charting - Where does Cp and Cpk come into the equation? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 5
W LTPD, AQL, Ppk and Cpk validation sampling plan table Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
M Cp and Cpk for straightness and parallelism Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 8
Q Capability - CPk comparison values Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 12
D Tolerance definition based on expected Cp/cpk Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 14
K Analysis variation among the lots during cpk calculation. Design and Development of Products and Processes 1
S Recommendation for user friendly Gaga R&R and Cpk software Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 10
A How to set up Continuous CpK monitoring of an injection mold process Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 7
A Interpretation with regards to Ppk > Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 14
U Cpk Calculation - I analyse a double seam cans Manufacturing and Related Processes 15
Proud Liberal Cp / Cpk on position using multiple MMC bonuses Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 2
I Can we use pin gauges to measure an accurate Cpk ? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 9
T Final process capability results - What I am supposed to present? Cp and CpK? APQP and PPAP 11
F CpK on a manufactured assembly? Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 7
M How is the Cmk and Cpk calculated? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 0
O Cpk for Unilateral Tolerance Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 9
B How to calculate CPK with n = 1 Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
O CPK with a P value less than 0.005 Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
A Short Term vs. Long Term SPC Study - Where is Cp and Cpk Defined Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
A Cpk Formula seems off, need help!? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 11
D Cp/Cpk on Gages for MSA (vs. Cg/Cgk) Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 21
E Questions regarding Cpk Calculation - Should we be using LSL/USL or LCL/UCL? Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 5
B Maximum Material Condition with Bonus - Determine Cpk for this one kpc Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
Hami812 Cpk Setting Tolerance - Cart before the Horse? (Wifi Routers) Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3
T Calculating LCL, UCL, Cp, and Cpk in an Excel Spreadsheet Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
Proud Liberal Cpk on Position w/ MMC on Location and Size Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3
E SPC Production - Getting Cpk and Ppk Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
S Track Cpk trend Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
M Cp & Cpk about a diameter measured with min.,max. and average values. Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 13
P Non-normal Data Cpk Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
alonFAI Cpk for Solder Paste Height Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
I As a part of validation, should i include the acceptance criteria of CPk index >1.33? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
T Cpk for 0 as Ideal Value Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
P Profile Tolerance and CPK Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
V When to use Cp Cpk and Pp Ppk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4
M Calculating Cpk when sample size equals to 1 Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 12
S CpK in Minitab when 0.0 is the lower spec limit Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 7
I Best way to Chart an On-Going CPK Requirement Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4
U Cpk for Contaminant Mass - Washing Parts Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 6
G Help with Cpk procedure Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3
J Calculation of σ within subgroups for Cpk in Minitab Using Minitab Software 1
S Value of Ppk or Cpk when targeting thinner material Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
B How to validate Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet Calculations for the Cpk value Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 9
D Calculating Cpk on Non-Normal Data Distribution Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 10
D Cpk relation to Reliability Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 4

Similar threads

Top Bottom