The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Statistical Techniques and 6 Sigma
  Machine Capability Studies

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Machine Capability Studies
Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 14 March 2001 01:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm looking but not finding a general statement anywhere here stating exactly how many parts should be checked as a general guideline for a machine capability study. Any body?

IP: Logged

AJLenarz
Forum Contributor

Posts: 25
From:Princeton, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 14 March 2001 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJLenarz   Click Here to Email AJLenarz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello Dawn,

The rule of thumb as stated in both the SPC manual is ã25 or more subgroups containing about 100 or more individual readings give a good test for stability and, if stable, good estimates of the process location and spreadä.

This can be found in SPC manual pg 31.

The PPAP manual states: ã· at least 100 individual samples·ä

This can be found in PPAP manual pg 6.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 14 March 2001 03:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dawn,

I'm not sure if you will find a definitive standard. The guidelines in the AIAG manual are at the best "adequate"

What I like to consider is the product being produced, the tools used, and cycle time. At a minimum I would consistantly graph 5 samples per subgroup during and 8 hour continuous production cycle.

This is not to mean inspect every part, just measure and plot one group and when that is done get the next 5 pieces, production continues while you are doing the study.

This is probably labor intensive but by doing it through 1 or 2 production shifts you will be able to get a handle on both random and assignable causes of variation.

ASD...

IP: Logged

Ken K.
unregistered
posted 15 March 2001 08:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree that the SPC Reference Manual and the PPAP Manual quantities are pretty standard.

Here is a method based on an article called "Recent Developments in Process Capability Analysis" by Robert N. Rodriguez (JQT, October, 1992)

I'll show it in Excel format:

XX=DELTA-NORMSINV(A/100)*SQRT((1/(9*N))+(CPK^2/(2*(N-1))))

where
A is the Type I confidence level expressed as a percentage, typically 90 or 95, {0CPK is the upper bound estimate of the Cpk, n increases as the CPK estimate increases.

DELTA is the desired resolution. Half-width of the desired one-sided lower confidence interval. n increases as DELTA decreases toward zero.

In all the above inputs, if unsure, use the more conservative value - the one that would provide the larger sample size n.

N is a proposed sample size that will be evaluated using the XX value.

Start with N = N' shown below:

N'=CEILING(NORMSINV(A/100)^2*(1/9+CPK^2/2)/DELTA^2,1)

Increase the value of N by integers until the smallest positive value for XX is obtained. The resulting N is the recommended sample size, n. Of course this assumed normality.

Typically the final number n is simply N'+1.


IP: Logged

DICKIE
Forum Contributor

Posts: 46
From:Romulus, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 15 March 2001 10:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DICKIE   Click Here to Email DICKIE     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We typically use a minimum of 25 subgroups. Most of the customers for special machines we build ask for 25 subgroups of 5.

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 15 March 2001 11:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks!
If you are running a study for 8 hours, 20 hours, 24 hours, etc., is this without ANY adjustments?

IP: Logged

AJLenarz
Forum Contributor

Posts: 25
From:Princeton, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 15 March 2001 12:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJLenarz   Click Here to Email AJLenarz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Capability indices can be divided into two categories: short-term and long term. Short-term capability studies are based on measurements taken from one operating run (the time frame could vary depending your particular production process). The data are analyzed with a control chart for evidence that the process is operating in a state of statistical control. If no special causes are found (a machine adjustment could be considered as a special cause), a short-term capability index can be calculated. This type of study is often used to validate the initial parts produced from a process for customer submission. Another use is for machine capability studies.

Long-term capability studies consist of measurement consist of measurements that are collected over a longer period of time. The data should be collected for long enough, and in such a way, as to include all expected sources of variation.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 15 March 2001 01:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dawn,

That is with adjustments and are noted on the control chart as a reference.

ASD...

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 20 March 2001 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So are you telling me there is no difference between a process capability study and a machine capability study? I understand the aforementioned to be a process capability study.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 20 March 2001 01:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dawn:
So are you telling me there is no difference between a process capability study and a machine capability study? I understand the aforementioned to be a process capability study.

Maybe it's just my line of business but I can't for the life of me see any discernable difference between machine capability and process/product capability.

During an initial study, as I noted above, we are monitoring the machine by defining offsets, tool changes etc... and determining a baseline or MTBF. As I noted there may be situations that warrant longer or shorter study frequencies. This is also giving us a view of our inherant variation as a tool change/offset is expected and not a special source of variation.

The tools used by the machine directly affect the variation in the end product which lead us to a process/product capabilty study.

This is not to say that there are studies that can and need to be performed on aspects of the machine that do not directly affect the end product. I choose to do these types of studies as part of our preventive/predictive maintainence system.

This is a real time system that works for us and I would like to here some additional discussion on machine vs product/process studies, I might be going down the wrong road.

ASD...

IP: Logged

SteelMaiden
Forum Contributor

Posts: 28
From:NC, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 20 March 2001 02:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteelMaiden     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al, be careful what you ask for, you might get it!

My SPC knowledge is rather limited, but I can think of a couple reasons to look at machine capabilities vs. process. If your process is slowly trending (or quickly, who knows?) towards one limit, it could be that your equipment is not as capable as it was due to age, wear and tear, some undiscovered malfunction, or whatever.

Another thing that some of my past coworkers have used is machine capabilities to plan for new or "changed" product. i.e., if the machine has a capability of X.0 and the revised customer specification is X.7, you will probably need to invest some money into upgrading or replacing the existing equipment, not?

Just my thoughts in regards to your statement about not seeing a discernable difference. You are probably right, statistically speaking ;-), most of the time a process capability study is probably sufficient for most of us. Maybe that is why we aren't all capable of reciting the correct methods and requirements of a machine capability study off the top of out heads.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 21 March 2001 01:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good points SteelMaiden,

There is fine line and I guess it comes down to the machines, tools, and processes in question. Feasibility during contract review and FMEA are good places to determine (or differentiate) both machine and process/product capability.

Let's here some more!!!

ASD...

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!