Interpreting Normal vs Weibull Capabilities

D

drew88

#1
Hello,

New to the forum. I tried reading up on related topics but I can't seem to wrap my head around this. Hope someone can help me! Sorry if I have butchered the world of statistics because I am trying to learn as I go and it's just too confusing...

I have 6 sets of pull force data of plastic heat staked posts (destructive tensile testing). Understanding that I will have a lot of difficulty justifying that the measurement system is reliable, we needed to go ahead and test this in some way to establish some level of process/product compliance to specification. Each set of data represents a specific location on the same processed part (6 posts per part).

Started by running basic capability/histograms and found 3 & 5 are not normal. Seems that the best fit (non-transformation) is 3 parameter weibull. Since all 6 posts should be the same, I thought I would perform the non-normal analysis uni formally.

This generally makes all the Ppk values go up. In 3 cases, the p-value goes up considerably which means it is a better fit? In 3 other cases, normal distribution has a better p-value. Does this mean that Weibull can not be used or that it also fits with a lower confidence?

As far as interpretation of what these capability indices mean, does it matter that I have a single process represented by Weibull distributions with different parameters? I feel like this defeats the whole purpose of characterizing the statistical model.

Also, for my understanding and curiosity, why would I not always characterize a model (even if it is close to normal) as Weibull if the data can be more closely characterized by the 3 parameters?

Data attached for reference. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance!
Andrew
 

Attachments

Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
I'd like to understand the purpose of the capability study...are you doing this because of a Customer reporting requirement (if so which standard) or are you doing it to understand the capability for good of the product? The answer we would give you is quite different.


With destruct testing one approach to understanding measurement error in relationship to part variation is to perform a capability study on the parts. if the observed variation is capable (stable and within specification over a period of time) then your measurement system is also 'good enough' because the observed variation has both the measurement error and the part variation captured.

My more important question is how you collected the samples and how many components of variation you included. this is far more critical to a good capability study than the underlying distribution (which is really just an exercise in statistical math nor an informative quality study...)

I can see from your data that you have captured within piece but how are you capturing piece to piece (for example, is it 8 sets 5 sequential parts spread out over time or is it one set of 40 sequential parts?). Other components of variation that you should be interested in: set-up to set up of the staking operation, lot to lot of the plastic assemblies, lot to lot of the resin, and even operator to operator and equipment to equipment...

This data should also be plotted on a control chart - or multi-vari chart - to assess stability before doing any capability assessment....

It's not about the statistical math, it's about the performance of the process...
 
D

drew88

#3
Hi BevD,

Thanks for the feedback. This is to understand the capability of the part relative to our design specification (functional requirement).

For destructive testing error, how do we run a capability study on the parts without a system that we trust to do the measuring?

As far as the data shown, they are sequential parts from an assembly dial table (no operator influence, but several nests). Same batch of plastic parts as far as we have resolution to see.

In the I-MR charts, if a few are stable and a few are not stable, how should I interpret that (relative to normal distribution)? If by placing the same data into a non-normal Weibull distribution, they fit the I-MR model, does that mean it is stable?

Thanks.
 

optomist1

A Sea of Statistics
Trusted Information Resource
#4
are the parts from just one piece of equipment? Are the parts assembled during one operation or shift? Depending on the goal of this endeavor the question Bev alluded to earlier, you might want to ensure that the "parts" subjected to the destructive tests are indicative of the process as you know it; are there other machines/tools that are used to assemble the parts, are there other sources of components/materials.....etc.
 
D

drew88

#5
are the parts from just one piece of equipment? Are the parts assembled during one operation or shift? Depending on the goal of this endeavor the question Bev alluded to earlier, you might want to ensure that the "parts" subjected to the destructive tests are indicative of the process as you know it; are there other machines/tools that are used to assemble the parts, are there other sources of components/materials.....etc.
Parts were assembled during one shift through one production stream/machine stream. There are other assembly steps that occur prior to it, but this is as limited in variation as I can hope for.

The only known variation between the parts would be different nests and mold cavities. Never tried looking at the mold cavity route, but these samples are as production representative as they come.

Is it agreed that if I see generally normalized data on 4/6 data points, I should expect to continue seeing normalized trends from similar testing? Back to my original point, it doesn't make sense to analyze every stream with independent non-normal distributions (and weibull parameters) to 'force them to fit' a distribution?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
W Interpreting a Normal Probability Plot Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
Q Interpreting China Medical Device regulations/standards China Medical Device Regulations 1
P ISO 80369-7 standard - Interpreting which Parts should be in scope Other Medical Device Related Standards 7
K PACS - interpreting MDD and Borderline Guidance CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
M List of Packaging Contents - Medical Devices - Interpreting EU Directive 93/42/EEC CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
P Interpreting Span Measurement - P95-P5 Six Sigma 1
B Interpreting Deviations 5 & 6 in Annex ZA in ISO 14971:2012 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
B Interpreting "misuse" when assessing Hazardous Situations ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 2
SteveK Interpreting clause 4.1.5 in ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
M Interpreting Process Controls - 21 CFR Part 820.70(a) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
M Help interpreting 21 CFR Part 806 (corrections and removals) Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
G Interpreting Type 1 MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) Results Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
M Help interpreting MIL-STD-105E Single Sampling Plans Tables Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
M Biocompatibility in Respiratory Products - Help interpreting whitepaper IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 22
I Interpreting Product Realization (Clause 7) in ISO 9001:2008 for Service Industry ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
V GD&T Interpreting Datums in Two Single Segmented Position Tolerances Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
M Interpreting X bar and R Control Charts Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
B Help with interpreting stock market terminologies Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
V Interpreting Zinc Plating Specification GMW 3044 - 6K96/48 APQP and PPAP 2
K Interpreting and Applying 7.3.2 Design and Development Inputs ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
S Interpreting the Calibration Report for my Dial Indicator General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
J Interpreting Process Capability results and ratios Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 1
B Length Measure - Interpreting Calibration Results and Measurement Uncertainty (MU) Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3
S Interpreting Level of Confidence - Round Robin for Tensile Testing - Help needed Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
M Interpreting AS9100 Clause 8.2.2 Internal Audit Requirements Internal Auditing 28
T Interpreting my t test in Minitab Using Minitab Software 2
S Interpreting Linear Regression Results from Minitab Using Minitab Software 15
optomist1 Interpreting LMC for Pattern of Slots (GD&T) Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
optomist1 Interpreting Minitab Test For Equal Variances Using Minitab Software 3
V Interpreting Minitab Gauge R&R Results Using Minitab Software 6
A ISO 2081 - Interpreting Coating Thickness Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 3
L Interpreting Injection Molding Tooling Documents - Cavities Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
C Interpreting Gage R&R Results - 3 operators, 3 iterations and 10 parts Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
M Interpreting Measurement Uncertainty for Temperature PRT probes Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
N Interpreting Hygrometer Calibration Uncertainty - Temperature Coefficient Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 1
mr500 Interpreting Decimals in the mm state - Off Wall Question Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 14
J Interpreting clause 7.5.2.1 (validation of software used in production & service) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
E Interpreting Partial Least Square Results Using Minitab Software 1
C Interpreting Outside Laboratory Calibration Certificate Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3
M Interpreting MIL-PRF-19500 (Performance Spec, Semicon Dev) - What is LTPD of 20 - ??? Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
T Rules for interpreting control charts Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
Q Interpreting Responsibility and Authority Clause 5.5.1 ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 18
H Interpreting 'Evaluation of compliance' in ISO 14001 Internal Auditing 4
P Micrometer Gage R&R study - Interpreting the data and suggestions Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
Wes Bucey "Downsizing" ramifications - Evaluating and Interpreting the News World News 0
Q Interpreting calibration result of Air Particle Counter on Counting efficiency General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
A Particle Counter Results - Interpreting Data for a Class 100,000 Cleanroom Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
M GD&T Q&A session - Interpreting FCF (Feature Control Frame) Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 43
N TL 9000 - Help Interpreting Normalization Unit for Measurements TL 9000 Telecommunications Standard and QuEST 2
K Question on Cp index - Calculating and Interpreting Cp and Cpl. Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom