Successful 1st Gage R&R Study...but

#1
We have had our first succesful gage R&R study using micrometers, calipers, tapes and profileometers. We are a steel mill planning to supply automotive and ar pursuing TS 16949 with a goal of this Dec. for full implementation. Micrometers have 1.6% error mostly due to instrument error with tapes and calipers being similar

We have run into one possible issue with our gage r&r study and that is our profileometers which measure surface roughnes of steel are over the 10 % acceptable criteria according to AIAG MSA manual page 77. They do state that between 10-30% may be acceptable based upon importance of application, cost of measurement device, cost of repair, etc. We are a stainless steel mill with the intent of supplying our steel mainly for exhaust systems. There may be other applications that I am not sure of yet. Possibly engine components like I know Ford has used our steel for Mustang wheel covers, fuel injectors and fuel filters. There are likely others that I do not know about. We also produce long products such as round rod, a possibility for shafts on water pumps, altenators, etc.

My question is we have 11.67% error with our profileometers which measure surface roughness (or smoothness) depending on how you look at it. Generally it is used on out polished finish which is used for kitchen sinks, stove tops, etc. The profileometer study showed most of the error being instrument error with around 1% operator error. Can we justify using these devices. We may not even sell polished material to automotive. Thanks to all for your help.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
N

noboxwine

#2
Go For Ot !

Sean K.: If I had profileometers reading 11.67%, I'd be thrilled ! I see nothing wrong with this R & R based upon your given information. For added confidence, go ahead and conduct a couple more studies and see whatcha come up with. Let us know and have a day ! :D
 

Atul Khandekar

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
Sean,
Congratulations! Overall the results look very very good to me and 11.67 looks like a borderline case. I would go with noboxwine's suggestion of conducting one or two more studies, and see what you come up with.
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#4
Sean,

Congrats!!!!! Just a quick question - Did you perform the profilometer study on a standard or or the steel?

Bill
 
#5
We used our steel samples which are definitely not as good as a standard but are more like our typical results in the mill. I believe using our steel does yield more errors than a standard probably would but think it would be more like what we do day to day.
 
#6
This brings me to another point. We conducted our study in a laboratory or office setting at a table but with the actual inspectors who do this job of measuring our steel. However this does differ from the their daily job of measuring steel in the factory environment. Is this acceptable for TS certification and by automotive industry or not?
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#7
Sean Kelley said:
We used our steel samples which are definitely not as good as a standard but are more like our typical results in the mill. I believe using our steel does yield more errors than a standard probably would but think it would be more like what we do day to day.
I certainly agree with you and noboxwine's comment of being thrilled with <12%. My reason for asking is that using a profilometer on a casting can be/is considered a "destructive" test as the material actually gets etched and when we perform an R&R on the part, the results are, typically, well over 20%. Don't know if it's the same thing on a steel surface.

This brings me to another point. We conducted our study in a laboratory or office setting at a table but with the actual inspectors who do this job of measuring our steel. However this does differ from the their daily job of measuring steel in the factory environment. Is this acceptable for TS certification and by automotive industry or not?
I honestly don't know if ambient temperature affects a profilometer as it does just about every other gage (my guess would be that it does). FWIW - We have done comparisons (not with profilometers) and found the end result didn't vary that much whether the study was performed in the metrology lab or out on the floor.

Bill
 
B

Bob_M

#8
Sean Kelley said:
We used our steel samples which are definitely not as good as a standard but are more like our typical results in the mill. I believe using our steel does yield more errors than a standard probably would but think it would be more like what we do day to day.
My BASIC understanding of Gage R&R tell me you SHOULD be using production stock/material/parts during the test.
Not knowing what a profilmeter is exactly, are you CALIBRATING the gage as well against a standard? Was the calibration results prior to the R&R within tolerance?
 
N

noboxwine

#9
Just a little more work

As someone mentioned, you should be conducting the R & R under real conditions. Ideally, the 10 pcs used should somewhat vary across the tolerance range and at least one (or two) should be out of spec. This will give you the best picture of how good your meaasurement system is. Let us know and keep up the good work ! :eek:
 
B

Bob_M

#10
noboxwine said:
As someone mentioned, you should be conducting the R & R under real conditions. Ideally, the 10 pcs used should somewhat vary across the tolerance range and at least one (or two) should be out of spec. This will give you the best picture of how good your meaasurement system is. Let us know and keep up the good work ! !:eek:
Shoulld some REALLY be out of spec? Would the AIAG MSA manaul really tell me to make BAD parts on purpose just for R&R? To be honest, some of our parts couldn't possibly be made "bad" unless the die broke or the wrong material thickness was used... *shrug* Maybe our real conditions are better than the "typical" user.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E How to start running a successful 5S program? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 11
V Characteristics & Objectives of successful QbD (Quality by Design) program US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 8
harrysons Thanks to Elsmar Cove - Successful TS16949:2009 Certification Covegratulations 10
M Which are essential qualities to become successful in Medical Device QA & RA? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 7
K Successful Audit: Thanks for your help! ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
C Successful AS9100 Audit - Thank You to everyone here AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
C Certificate statement for Successful Completion of Training Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
D Successful Validation = Reduced Inspection? No Inspection?? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
L Successful AS9100 certification audit AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 13
E Successful Gage R&R Anova or X/R? Need example Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
C Examples of successful 5S projects - Introducing 5S on the shopfloor and the offices Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 8
Marc German Scientist Reports Successful Tests Of ?Anti-Stupidity? Pill... Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 13
Crusader ISO 9001 Registration Audit Successful! ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
D Successful ISO 9001:2000 Certification Audit and questions on auditors ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
E TS 16949 Registration Audit - Successful! IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
M Successful Registration! ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
M ISO 9001 Certification - Successful First Registration Audit? (Poll) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 76
Tom W Opinions from Successful Registrations??? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
S Successful TS 16949:2000 Registration Audit IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 17
J Successful ISO 9001:2000 - Celebration!!! ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
A Successful 9001:2000 Certification Stories ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
D Successful Registration QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 1
T Sample of 1st Article Inspection Report wanted APQP and PPAP 3
K China UDI Implementation for October 1st 2019 China Medical Device Regulations 4
J AS9100D Sections related to 1st Piece and In-Process Inspection Manufacturing and Related Processes 15
V Handling decomissioned line/equipment during 1st time product-based inspection US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
A 1st Time Purchase of Aluminum Extrusion - First Article? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
Q Effective 1st Piece Inspection Sign Off Procedure Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 8
S 1st AHWP-RAPS Joint Conference @ KL, Malaysia 2-3 Dec 2013 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
A Publication Dates of MSA Manuals (1st & 2nd Ed.) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
D QMS 1st Cycle - Indicators and Data ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 18
N 1st Shift vs. 2nd Shift Production Crews - How to end this war? Career and Occupation Discussions 15
W Is there an IEC 60601 3rd Edition 1st Amendment? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
Q Using Traceable Standards - AIAG MSA Manual Chapter II, Section B, 1st bullet Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 4
M Class I Medical Device - 1st notification and change notification EU Medical Device Regulations 4
K Raw Materials from 3rd World Countries vs. Finished Products from 1st World Countries Philosophy, Gurus, Innovation and Evolution 23
somashekar Medical Device Regulation - Singapore - 1st May 2010 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 4
N What is a ?Reasonable? failure rate for an electronic device in the 1st year? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 7
J FAA Training suggestions wanted for Sept 1st week Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 5
N Nonconforming Product - 1st Piece Rejection Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
G APQP 1st edition VS APQP 2nd edition - what are the main changes APQP and PPAP 2
CarolX Blueprint numbering for 1st Article submission Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 13
C Passed the CQE (Certified Quality Engineer) exam 1st time Professional Certifications and Degrees 23
C 1st Gage R&R Results help Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 48
J Final Inspection - 1st Article Dimensions before Anodize and Passivation Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
P Digital Camera 1st DSLR Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 10
ScottK ISO9001 - 1st Surveillance less than 6 months after registration ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
R AIAG's FMEA Manual 4th Edition pushed back to 1st quarter 2008 FMEA and Control Plans 16
CarolX Definition 1st, 2nd and 3rd Party Audits - Definition Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 29
M Our 1st surveillance audit is coming soon - Any new input..or requirment..? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom