Handling knowledge of measurement uncertainty in practice - Part verification

M

Morten Lunde

#1
MSA studies results in a %GRR value plus a bias-estimate etc. This can be translated into: The measurement process uses a percentage of the total tolerance you are verifying. The amount used by the measurement process is often denoted "U" when normal spread has been calculated .
Therefore you should only approve the part you are measuring if the result falls inside the specification limits minus "U" on each side of the interval (if bias is also considered, you could add this to the GRR or correct your measurement results systematically....).

This leads to questions like:

If the product has been produced for years before the MSA-study was done, we have actually approved parts measuring: tolerance+ (2x"U"), so should we then increase our tolerance limit with 2 x "U" (a "U" at LCL and UCL), and proceed approving parts inside "old" tolerance limits (new tol.-2x"U")?

Or should we only approve parts within: tol.-(2 x "U") and then exspect higher rejection rates?

If it is a new product and say the %GRR = 20 for a tolerance interval 10-20, could we then approve parts that measures 12-18 (having subtracted 20% of 10 from each side of the interval, not considering bias etc.)?

Have you any inputs on this?
How do you handle the measurement uncertainty in practice with regards to verification of parts?

It is mainly the "political" issues regarding introduction of MSA-studies and there results in a product verification process and in running production, that concerns me.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#2
First, be careful with your terminalogy. GRR is a part of measurement uncertainty, but is not all of it. Your question appears to deal more with the GRR and the performance characteristics of the gage.

If your part characteristic is very important, such that no customer risk is acceptable, you may use "guardbanding". This is your tolerance - 2 x "U" scenario. This reduces customer risk to ~ zero, and places 100% of the risk on the manufacturer.

Your tolerance + 2 x "U" scenario does the opposite. 100% of the risk is on the customer and 0% on the manufacturer.

Your current situation places 50% of the risk on each.

The most common practice is to use the existing tolerance and ensure an acceptable %GRR. In a quality-critical application, guardbanding is a somewhat less-common practice that is usually dependent on having a very good capability index.

The MSA 3rd edition manual shows how to construct a gage performance curve that will show the probability of accepting a product throughout the tolerance range. This will help clarify your situation.
 
M

Morten Lunde

#3
Hi Miner

My focus is the entire measurement process and the resulting U as defined in MSA 3rd ed. chapt. 1 sect. F. In my experience, the biggest contribution to U comes from the measure process (handling, levelling, measurepoint etc.) not the gage itself.

Also, as a rule I want to measure only characteristics that are important for costumers down the “production stream” including the end costumer.

Interesting input about sharing the risk. I have not realized this perspective before. Problem arises ofcourse, when a costumer checks the part characteristics eg. at incoming control. In a 50/50 scenario he will find parts outside specification, that manufacturer has judged inside spec. Result: Products falling between two chairs that nobody wants to take resposibility for...

I would prefer guardbanding as a manufacturer, cause if I don’t, it feels as if I am shipping products which I know have defects, unless ofcourse a 50/50 scenario has been specifically agreed.

The “gage performance curve” example referred to, where in the manual is this?
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#4
Morten Lunde said:
Hi Miner

My focus is the entire measurement process and the resulting U as defined in MSA 3rd ed. chapt. 1 sect. F. In my experience, the biggest contribution to U comes from the measure process (handling, levelling, measurepoint etc.) not the gage itself.

Also, as a rule I want to measure only characteristics that are important for costumers down the “production stream” including the end costumer.

Interesting input about sharing the risk. I have not realized this perspective before. Problem arises ofcourse, when a costumer checks the part characteristics eg. at incoming control. In a 50/50 scenario he will find parts outside specification, that manufacturer has judged inside spec. Result: Products falling between two chairs that nobody wants to take resposibility for...

I would prefer guardbanding as a manufacturer, cause if I don’t, it feels as if I am shipping products which I know have defects, unless ofcourse a 50/50 scenario has been specifically agreed.

The “gage performance curve” example referred to, where in the manual is this?
I am away from my manual, so maybe someone else can jump in and assist. I think it might be in one of the appendices, but I will not guarantee it.

In simple terms, you take each tolerance limit and draw one line either side of the each limit at +/- 3s (where s is the measurement error s determined in MSA study).

Everything less than the LSL - 3s and above the USL + 3s has a probability of acceptance of 0%.

Everything between the LSL + 3s and USL - 3s has a probability of acceptance of 100%.

At the LSL and the USL, the probability of acceptance is 50%.

Between LSL - 3s to LSL + 3s (and USL - 3s to USL + 3s), the transition of probability from 0% to 100% (and from 100% back to 0%) follows the probability distribution from a standard z-table.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Advice on how to reduce overhead of handling non-conforming material Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7
B Handling lower detection limits for SPC and process performance Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
A ISO 10002:2018 Checklist Needed (Complaints Handling) Customer Complaints 5
G Handling Unpacked (Additive Chemical) Product For Automotive Applications IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
A Handling of contaminated medical equipment Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 0
B Procedures for Complaint Handling and Post Market Surveillance EU Medical Device Regulations 7
J KPIs or Metrics to Measure a New Complaint Handling Process 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 9
shimonv Rigid rules for handling supplier audit findings ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
Jimmy123 Handling nonfunctional requirements in DFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 5
F Component Molding and Over-molding - Handling Resin Inventory Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
Q Handling Off-the-Shelf Components 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
V Handling open points in design reviews 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
L AS9100 D- Handling Nonconformance Documentation for an organization that outsources most of the work. AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
P HVAC System vs Air Handling Unit (AHU) - Differences Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
L GMDN code wanted - Software for handling records Service Industry Specific Topics 9
L Handling Sort/Return Requests Customer Complaints 8
S Document Handling during an Audit General Auditing Discussions 6
S Handling Cost of Sales requests for Customer Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 2
Q AS9100/AS1180-1 - Handling of Equipment and Calibration Records AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 12
M Complaint Handling Responsibilities for a Design Partner - ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
S Merging Post Market Surveillance and Complaint Handling ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A ISO 9001 Ergonomics and Manual Handling Requirements ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
C Suggestions requested on handling batch record papers exposed to hormonal products Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
A Production and Post-Production and Complaint Handling ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 2
C What's Your Process for handling rush jobs, urgent or priority orders ? Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
A Medical Device Handling AFTER the device's specified lifetime has expired 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
T Handling of Obsolete Material Work Instruction ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
A Risk Management, complaint handling and CAPA system ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 5
W Aerospace Materials Handling Training AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 9
V Handling decomissioned line/equipment during 1st time product-based inspection US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
D Complaint Handling Call Centers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
W Contract Initial Importer and Order Handling for a Class I Medical Device Service Industry Specific Topics 2
W SOP on Handling of HCl (Hydrochloric Acid) Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
A Handling Normal Capacitor Production Fallout AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
K Procedure for Handling of Customer Supplied Material (AS9100 Requirements) AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
M Procedure for Handling Customer Return Part (Defective Part Return) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
M Manufacturer's handling of Distributor's Historical Complaint Records US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
C Anyone have experience handling Feed Safety Management System (GMP+B2)? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
V ISO10002:2004 (Guidelines for Handling Customer Complaints) Self Assessment Checklist Customer Complaints 5
V Ensuring Improvement and Handling Change FMEA and Control Plans 4
S Handling Out-of-Specification Results: FDA's guidance for the industry Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 12
M Internal Warehouse Handling - A Reverse Logistic Case! Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 6
C Corrective Action and Preventive Action for Operator Error (Cosmetic - Handling) Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 15
S PCB Handling Requirements - What to do if we drop a PCB during the assembly Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
M Raw Material Handling & Mixing in Plastic Injection Moulding Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
C Safe Handling of Non-Device Refurbished Medical Equipment US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
Y Handling of Potentially Biohazard Material - Alcohol Cleaning Procedure ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 12
R Use of Automated Liquid Handling Robot for a PCR based Assay CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
R Storage Procedure per NQA 1 Storage and Handling Requirements Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 6
Michael Malis What is the best Complaint Handling system? Customer Complaints 16

Similar threads

Top Bottom