Inspection Criteria - ISO 14253-1 is actually a disguised guardband

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#1
Inspection - On The Border

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:36:25 +0100
From: "Theodore D. Doiron" nist.gov
Subject: inspection criteria

Hi,

I sent this reply to another listserve, but it seems that it would be appropriate for this group also. the basic question was:


>>I have a question I have wondered ABOUT for a long time. What
>>limits of inspection accuracy are appropriate? For example, if a
>>dimension is toleranced as .500 +/- .001, at what point do we reject
>
>>the part? .5011?, .50101?,.501001? (You get the point!) My
>>assumption would be to use a 10:1 rule, and measure the part to
>>.0001 accuracy. What do you think?
>_______________________________________________________________________

You have hit on one of the grand questions of inspection. As with most grand questions there is no one answer. There is a standard, ISO 14253-1 which attempts to set a world default. This standard says,

The manufacturer must subtract the expanded measurement uncertainty (k=2, or about 95% confidence level) from the tolerance to prove it is good. The buyer must add the expanded measurement uncertainty (k=2) to the tolerance to prove the part is bad.

There is, of course, a rather important band of + or - the uncertainty about the tolerance where the part is not clearly good or bad. What to do with these is still a problem.

There are, of course, lots of other choices.

In many standards there is an arbitrary uncertainty allowance added to the tolerance, usually not the laboratory uncertainty but some arbitrary number. The Gage Block Standard (GGG-G-15C and ASME B89.1.9 are examples).

The most common use in the US seems to be if the uncertainty (k=something, usually 2) is less than some fraction of the tolerance, commonly 25% (10% traditionally, 25% in Z540, 33% in ISO 10012, ...) then the tolerance is used as stated. This corresponds to the ISO 14253 standard used with k=0. I admit that using the expanded uncertainty with k=0 doesn't make sense at first (at least it didn't to me when Ralph Veale explained to me how k=0 would be a good idea), but in the language of ISO 14253 it is actually a sensible description of current US practice.

What we are talking about here are guardbands. ISO 14253-1 is actually a disguised guardband standard. Guardbands are safety factors subtracted (or added) to the tolerance depending on the relative importance of the product failing and costing money to make right. If you are making a part that, if it were to fail, would cost lots of money you would subtract a large guardband from the tolerance to make very sure the parts going out were good. If a part failure is not very consequential, then a very small or even no, guardband would be used. It depends on money; scrap costs for good parts failed and repair costs ( and/or legal actions) for bad parts passed.

The ISO 14253-1 scheme is quite peculiar because it assigns different guardbands to different measurements, depending on who is doing the measurement. It thus is not aimed at maximizing anyone's profit, but at avoiding lawyers. The standard is designed to prevent the buyer and seller from ever disagreeing on a part being in tolerance by putting all of the parts where there is even a very small possibility of disagreement into sort of a part Limbo. There is a cost involved in this, that many people think is inappropriate for all, or even most, cases.

The EA is a combination. It says to validate something to a specification the measurement uncertainty must be a small (unstated) fraction of the tolerance, and you must subtract the (k=2) expanded uncertainty from the tolerance. At least the rule is the same for everybody. For the tests that fall into Instrument Limbo (within tolerance but outside the guardbanded accepted zone) the report only gives the results and uncertainty, leaving it to the customer to do as he wishes.

The final answer is that all of the standards are voluntary standards that are assumed to hold if you do not state what rule you want. It is sort of a default. You can put any rule you want to in a contract for parts. I think it is a good idea to set your own because it makes you think about the consequences of the acceptance rules, which makes you think about how the tolerance you set on the part really affects its function, and finally makes you think about all of this in terms of your profit.

My guess is in factories that subtract the uncertainty from the tolerance to get an acceptance zone, tolerances are smaller than those in companies that don't subtract the uncertainty. Those who add uncertainty to tolerances to get the acceptance zone will likely have very small tolerances. Remember, for the parts to work they must be a certain size, thus the acceptance bands for the part in various factories are probably very close. The tolerances are chosen with the measurement uncertainty to give the right acceptance band for whatever acceptance band formula is used. It might be nice if everybody used the same formula, but to force everybody to use the same formula will cause disruptions as tolerances are redeveloped.

It would be interesting to get a wide view of what tolerence testing rules were really used in industry. Maybe you could send out a questionaire and find out. With enough information about industry practice a reasonable default could be put in Z540 or a US equivalent to ISO 14253-1 or EA-04-01.

I hope this isn't too confusing, but when the only standard on using uncertainty for testing tolerances (ISO 14253-1) has a method which is used by virtually nobody in the world, confusion is to be expected. Let me know what you think.

bye

Ted Doiron

National Institute of Standards and Technology
Precision Engineering Division
Metrology Bldg., Rm. B113
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8211

U.S. Department of Commerce Technology Administration
______________________________________

Todds Two Political Principles:
1. No matter what they’re telling you, they’re not telling you the whole
truth.
2. No matter what they’re talking about, they’re talking about money.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
I came across this goodie. Did a Google and found this from the Bulgarian Institute for Standardization
http://www.bds-bg.org/EN/work_progr/wtc/138.html
TC: 28 General metrology
Close
EN ISO 14253-1:1998

Working item: 01-028-0007-1
Title: Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) - Inspection by measurement of workpieces and measuring equipment - Part 1: Decision rules for proving conformance or non-conformance with specifications
ICS: 17.040.10

Stage: 2 Date: 30.5.2004
Stage: 3 Date: 30.8.2004
Stage: 4 Date: 30.9.2004
Is anyone using EN ISO 14253-1:1998 in their system? Does anyone have a copy? If so, is GD&T addressed? If so, how?

Is anyone using Guardbanding in any of your proces controls?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Mother bobbin final inspection criteria Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
M Wire Harness Line Process and Inspection Criteria Manufacturing and Related Processes 9
B Customer Inspection Frequency and Rejection Level Criteria - Sample Lot Size AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 6
L First Article Inspection Criteria for Medical Device Manufacturers Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
M Standards Australia - AS1199.3 2003 Skip Lot inspection Criteria and Requirements Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
L Criteria for Establishing Control Plan Sample Size and Inspection Frequency FMEA and Control Plans 7
S Is there an Accept/Reject Criteria for 100% Inspection? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 9
K Visual inspection and acceptance criteria Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
C Is there a JEDEC, EIA or Military standard for Chip Scale Package Inspection Criteria Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 5
N Inspection Criteria for Foreign Objects in LCD Assemblies needed Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 2
J Screw Thread Inspection Standards? Double Ended Stud Inspection Criteria Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
D Guidance for Developing Inspection and Test Criteria Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
Marc Visual Inspection - Color Vision Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 15
G Inspection Logs - Asked to remove an Inspection Sheet ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
Skooma Receiving Inspection - Boss trying to save money AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 7
T Sample of 1st Article Inspection Report wanted APQP and PPAP 3
T Nonconforming product at customer detected by a routine inspection by field service Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
A Definition of customer in ITP (Inspection & Test Plan) Contract Review Process 3
T Correct MSA study for an automated camera system which makes attribute inspection Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
A DCMA inspection for a drop-shipment AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
S QUALITY OBJECTIVEs for third party garments factory inspection ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
D Lean and Elimination of QC Inspection Points in a New factory Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 9
F FDA-registration and inspection cost 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
I Receiving Inspection Requirement in IATF IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
R Supplier related drawings and verification of process requirements - Source Inspection AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
D AS9100 Inspection records - Is there a requirement to have gauge ID and calibration status AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
D Good Acceptance Activity/Inspection flowchart for reference - Wanted Please Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 2
K Inspection Certificate EN 10204 2.1 - Distribution company Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 4
S Improving Quality inspection gate in one piece flow manufacturing process Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
M Loss of a Quality Record - FDA Inspection Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 4
S Need Assistance in Visual Inspection - Tiny electronic components AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 11
S. Moore Is an Annual Layout Inspection the same as an Annual Re-validation? Internal Auditing 1
D Incoming (Receiving) Inspection - General form for incoming part inspection Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 17
K First Article Inspection (FAI) - Equipment used - Dimensions vs. Go/No-Go ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Informational USFDA Draft Guidance – Review and Update of Device Establishment Inspection Processes and Standards Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Inspection/sampling economics Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
C Is a First Article Inspection (FAI) Procedure required by ISO 13485? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
T EN 10204 3.1 Inspection Certificate - Machine Shop Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 4
A Doubt on multiple inspection carrying out for same balloon number during Stage Inspection and Final Inspection? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
M 3rd Party Sorting and Inspection Company Certification Service Industry Specific Topics 4
D FDA QSR task checklist based on inspection citations 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
John Predmore What size pinhole can be reliably detected using visual inspection? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
F Holes position inspection - Calculation of centre distance and plug sizes of a gauge Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
V Inspection with 3D Scanning - Reference Data Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
L Inspection Plan for Microscope Objective Lens Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
N Process Flow diagram steps for inspection and packaging APQP and PPAP 4
S Poka Yoke Inspection Retaining Ring (C-Clip) Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
J Recommendations on Inspection/SPC Software Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
M FAI AS9102 - What does a First Article Inspection cover? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 11
C AS9100, Clause 8.5.1.3 - First Article Inspection Costs AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 16
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom