Hello,
We use a "particle size standard," which is a transparent template with different particle sizes denoted on it (0.25 mm to 2.00 mm in 0.25 mm increments). It is held over a defect to determine its size. Maximum defect sizes are called out on control plans/standards and these particle size standards are used like gauges to verify if the defect size is acceptable.
I'm looking to understand if, per IATF16949, each one of these gauges would need a gauge ID and annual calibrations if used in process control. I can see the argument that ink from the template could be worn off (or dirt/paint could be marked on), making one of the readings inaccurate, but see this as a very unlikely risk and not worth consuming Metrology resources for.
Has anyone had something similar to this addressed in an IATF audit?
Any opinions or perspectives would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave
We use a "particle size standard," which is a transparent template with different particle sizes denoted on it (0.25 mm to 2.00 mm in 0.25 mm increments). It is held over a defect to determine its size. Maximum defect sizes are called out on control plans/standards and these particle size standards are used like gauges to verify if the defect size is acceptable.
I'm looking to understand if, per IATF16949, each one of these gauges would need a gauge ID and annual calibrations if used in process control. I can see the argument that ink from the template could be worn off (or dirt/paint could be marked on), making one of the readings inaccurate, but see this as a very unlikely risk and not worth consuming Metrology resources for.
Has anyone had something similar to this addressed in an IATF audit?
Any opinions or perspectives would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave