Meeting the AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R Bias, Linearity, Stability requirements

F

Frank45

#1
Hello:

Our Mfg. Facility has thousands of measuring devices which are in several types. They are used in the manufacturing process, tool room, gage lab, and final testing. My question is what have others done in meeting the MSA requirements of bias, linearity, stability, repeatability, reproducibility? We have done GR&R's on each type of gage on initial certification for measurement systems used for in process control and final testing. Also GR&R's have been performed on the measuring systems used in our Gage Lab. Also key Control Characteristics have had GR&R's performed as per customer requirements
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
A

Al Dyer

#2
Repeatability (precision), Reproducibility, Bias (accuracy), Linearity, and Stability on all gages used in the system.

We have developed excel spreadsheets to document all studies except stability. For stability we do an X-R chart using 5 measurements from a known standard (master?)on a weekly basis. The resulting Cp and CpK's are used for evaluation.

We have found this method painless and acceptable to three Lead Auditors we have dealt with.

I have found that Gage R&R alone will not pass the muster these days and if an auditor accepts them I would wonder about the knowledge base of the auditor.

------------------


Email me and I will send you a copy of the excel (2000) spreadsheets for bias, linearity, and stability. They are self explanatory.

ASD...
 
E

e.s.deo

#3
It has to be decided by the company looking at the charactristics of the measurements and the measurement systems.

Once the charracteristics have been decided e.g. stability, bias , linearity, R&R , etc.
the study has to be conducted for the same.
The phase 1 study may be helpful in taking such decisions.

However only R&R MAY NOT be sufficient.

Thanks
e.s.deo
 
J

J.R. Strickland

#4
We have successfully taken the following approach...

1. Gage R&R required for ALL gages/test equipment.

2. All 5 MSA studies required for tests of special characteristics.

With that said, we have also recently been discussing "what is appropriate?" (Reference the first sentence in 4.11.4) There are cases for particular tests on electronics that a bias study is not appropriate and it becomes our obligation to demonstrate through sound statistics and reasoning that it is an "inappropriate" statistical study.

------------------
 
H

hemant

#5
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS (MSA)

STABILITY:

When considering the subject of stability in connection with measurement system, it becomes extremely important to differentiate between what is generally referred to as measurement system stability ----

a ) The amount of total variation in the system’s bias over time on a given part or master part : Known as "Stability over Time"

and

statistical stability, the more general term which is applied to not only stability ,but to repeatability, bias, process in general., etc.



to understand the difference between the two stability, let us consider that there can be 2-measurement systems, measuring exactly the same master part, both of which demonstrate statistical stability, yet one system may have significantly higher variation in its bias over time than the other. From a statistical standpoint, they are equally stable. From a traditional gage stability stand point, the system with greater bias variations over time is considered less “ STABLE “ than the one with lower bias variation. ----------------- (page-21,chapter-2-section-2 )

Statistical properties of measurement systems :

The measurement system must be in statistical control. This means that variation in the measurement system is due to common causes only and not due to special causes. This can be referred to as statistical stability. ---------- (page-5, chapter –1 , section-2 )

Quality of measurement data
The statistical properties most commonly used to characterize the quality of data are

Bias and Variance.

The property called bias refers to the location of the data relative to the master value and the property called variance refers to the spread of the data.

---------- ( page-3 , chapter-1,section-1)

Specifically, the procedures assess the following statistical properties;

Repeatability, reproducibility, bias, stability, and linearity.

Collectively, the procedures are sometimes referred to as “gage R&R” procedures. ------------ (page-15,chapter-15,-section-1)

DOES THE GAGE R&R ASSESS THE SAID STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OTHER THAN REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIBILITY. YES/NO.

If yes -------------- how

Analysis of results ---graphical analysis


Stability

From range chart stability is determined by: a point or points beyond the control limit ; within operator or within part patterns, ------- ( page-46 , chapter 2- section 4 )





linearity

the averages of the multiple readings by each appraiser on each part are plotted with the reference value or overall part average as the index. This plot can assist in determining :

linearity (if the reference value is used ) ------- (page-52, chapter 2-section4 )

CONCLUSION

GAGE R&R study is an apt exercise for statistical stability and if used, as said above all statistical properties are revealed. Like stability, linearity, repeatability & reproducibility. GRR should be done first and GRR values should be brought below 10% . This can be achieved by understanding the graphical representation and taking appropriate steps. By doing so we are achieving the "Statistical stability".

Without data –based knowledge of the state of control of a measuring process, R&R figures are only descriptions of the data obtained during study. They have no meaning for future performance. Assessing the repeatability ,reproducibility, etc, of a measurement system for which the state of stability is unknown may cause more harm than good. When talking of measurement system statistical stability, the length of time a system is stable is often a major point of discussion. However by means of TIME STABILITY, the length of time a system is stable can be found by using x-bar r-bar control chart. This time stability is to be done after statistical stability in other words called gage R&R. Incase if time stability is performed prior to gage R&R the bias readings will not be exact as readings are contaminated with repeatability and, reproducibility errors.

Above all, any manufacturing process is supposed to be statistically stable if CP & CPK are controlled as they are representing spread & bias (centrality. ).The normal practice to control SPREAD first then to CPK the bias or centering OPN.

Similarly, we have to look at measurement system.

First control repeatability and reproducibility errors of SPREAD by doing gage R&R STUDY and then go to TIME STABILITY to know the extent of DRIFT OR BIAS the CPK.
 
T

Thothathiri

#7
Originally posted by Frank45:
Hello:

Our Mfg. Facility has thousands of measuring devices which are in several types. They are used in the manufacturing process, tool room, gage lab, and final testing. My question is what have others done in meeting the MSA requirements of bias, linearity, stability, repeatability, reproducibility? We have done GR&R's on each type of gage on initial certification for measurement systems used for in process control and final testing. Also GR&R's have been performed on the measuring systems used in our Gage Lab. Also key Control Characteristics have had GR&R's performed as per customer requirements
As per PPAP Third Edition, Appropriate MSA studies need to be conducted to all the measuring system available.

Organisation will be get benifited if we understand the intent of MSA Requirement mentioned in QS 9000 Standard.

MSA has Phase I and Phase II.

In Phase I, Bias and Linearity need to conducted before accepting the new gauge.

For old gauges, Bias and Linearity study is conducted by measuring the master value for 12 times and compute the bias as per MSA manual.

As a Phase II, GR&R study is conducted to quality the gauge to use in appropriate measuring system (system compraises part, appraiser, environment).
As ongoing stability of gauge is done to confirm the gauge variation statistically stable.

Hence GR&R alone is not sufficient.

As you are having plenty of measuring gauges, you can group the type of gauge and part tolerance for which the gauge is used and find out the Close tolerance for which the gague is used. Do GR&R study for that type of instrument alone.


------------------
 
A

andrew-2006

#8
Frank45 said:
Hello:

Our Mfg. Facility has thousands of measuring devices which are in several types. They are used in the manufacturing process, tool room, gage lab, and final testing. My question is what have others done in meeting the MSA requirements of bias, linearity, stability, repeatability, reproducibility? We have done GR&R's on each type of gage on initial certification for measurement systems used for in process control and final testing. Also GR&R's have been performed on the measuring systems used in our Gage Lab. Also key Control Characteristics have had GR&R's performed as per customer requirement.
Could you tell what method did you use for Attribute Gauges R&R
Thank you,
Andrew
 
K

kienkit

#9
Re: Meeting the AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R requirements of Bias, Linearity, Stability

All :

I have one measurement gage that 95% of the time used as product control ( rejecting and accepting part) and the less of time used as statistical analysis ( regression analysis , statistical analysis for process improvement).
In ANOVA minitab,I obtained result as below :
% contribution : 15%
% study variation : 35.50%
% tolerance : 23.67%
ndc : 2

Based on the AIAG requirement,all are rejected except % tolerance.A few modification being made to further improve the gage,but no significant difference of the result.

What is the impact if i release it to production ?Can i continue to release it to production used for product control only ?The ndc is 2,the gage still can discriminate upper and lower part.
Is it safe to be used ?
Please advise
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Admin
#10
Re: Meeting the AIAG's MSA Manual Gage R&R requirements of Bias, Linearity, Stability

The only metric that applies to a gage used for product control is the % Tolerance = 23.67. If the characteristic to be inspected is not critical, the gage should be acceptable for this use.

The other metrics apply to a gage to be used for process control or statistical analysis, so the gage would not be suitable for that use.

Note: This assumes that the parts measured represent the typical process variation. If the parts are less variable, these numbers will look worse than they actually are. The converse is also true.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R AIAG Rollout meeting - ISO16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 19
S Has anybody done IMS - Management Review Meeting ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 7
C Does a CE mark infer meeting all applicable standards? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
T Management review meeting workflow ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
M Informational EU – Minutes of the 24 July 2019 SCHEER Working Group on safety of breast implants in relation to anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) meeting Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational EU – Meeting minutes – Competent Authorities on Substances of Human Origin Expert Group Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
J Any diverging opinions regarding audit findings or conclusions must be resolved no later than the closing meeting ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
M Informational EU – 12th Meeting of the Working Group on Guidelines on benefit – risk assessment of Phthalates in Medical Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational Next meeting of the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDR/IVDR) – 20 June 2019 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 2
M Informational 2019 Meeting Materials of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
R Major nonformance finding was given during a closing meeting of a ISO9001 certification audit General Auditing Discussions 76
M Informational EU – SCHEER – Minutes of the Working Group meeting on guidelines on the benefit-risk assessment of the presence of phthalates in certain medical devic Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
M Informational RIVM – Summary International Expert Meeting on breast implant-associated lymphoma Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational The USFDA Announces General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Meeting on March 25-26, 2019 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Medical Device News USFSA – 2019 Meeting Materials of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational ISO TC 210 IEC SC 62A JWG 1 Medical device risk management – São Paulo meeting 2019 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 6
M Medical Device News ISO TC 210 IEC SC 62A JWG 1 Medical device risk management – São Paulo meeting 2019 Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
D FDA Pre-Submission Meeting Advice US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
M Informational ISO TC 210 JWG 1 meeting in São Paulo – Revision of ISO 14971 and ISO TR 24971 – Medical Device Risk Management Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M FDA News FDA announces panel meeting on surgical mesh placed transvaginally to treat pelvic organ prolapse Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
L 510 (K) Pre-Sub meeting - Does it worth? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
Q ISO planning annual meeting? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
T FDA Q-Submission Informational Meeting 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
Marc IAQG Cleveland, Ohio Meeting - October 16-19, 2017 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
K Meeting the requirements of ISO 13485:2016 Cl. 4.1.4 within a wiki-based QMS ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
B IATF 16949 Cl. 4.3.2 - Meeting Customer Specific Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
Z MRM (Management Review Meeting) Template for ISO 9001:2015 Management Review Meetings and related Processes 3
S Corporate Quality Manager keeping me out of the Management Review Meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 28
F Development Meeting with the FDA - Approval Pathway for a Combination Product 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
M ISO 14971:2007 Revision Approved - The Delft ISO TC 210 plenary meeting - Nov 2016 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 2
L Auditing Top Management - Meeting Competency Requirements and Questions to Ask General Auditing Discussions 11
J Organizational Knowledge Requirements - Meeting ISO 9001:2015 Clause 7.1.6 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 60
D What should be included in Management Review Meeting for ISO 9001:2015? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
Q REACH due dilligence and meeting the ever moving SVHC target RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 5
N Incompleted tasks from previous management review meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 1
B Meeting the requirements of ISO/TS16949 Clause 6.2.2.3 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
L CB finding on Management Review Meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 32
I Meeting AS9100, FAA, Transport Canada, EASA Training Requirements - Vent/Rant Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
J Meeting Feasibility Requirement - High number of part quotes IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M Presentation Material for New Project Kick Off Meeting Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
D Documenting Meetings through Meeting Minutes or a Form ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
Q Consult "GM APQP" Step1: Key Stakeholders Meeting - GM 1927-18 APQP and PPAP 5
T Question re: Meeting the Requirements of ISO 9001 Clause 7 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
D Management Review Meeting Agenda and Minutes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
Hershal IAS Public Accreditation Committee Meeting Feb 10, 2014 General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
R Aerospace QPL Suppliers not meeting our AVL requirements. AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
D Integrated 9001, 14001, 18001 Management Review Meeting and Minutes Management Review Meetings and related Processes 10
I Content to be included or excluded in Design Control Meeting Minutes ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
drgnrider Corrective Action for not meeting target-RCA obvious ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
Q Meeting the Requirement of Clause 7.5.2 on Validating Special Processes AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom