Recent Extensions in Gauge Capability Studies

2002 Q&P Research Conference June 6, 2002

Richard K. Burdick Arizona State University

The Big Picture

Statistical techniques have played an important role in maintaining competitive position for the U. S. manufacturing industry. In order to maintain a competitive position, companies must manufacture products with almost perfect consistency and repeatability. This requires an ability to measure the variability of highly complex manufacturing processes.
2

Cell Phone Test

A cell phone manufacturer tests whether each phone is functioning properly just prior to shipment. The test system consists of a fixture which secures the phone and a rack of measurement equipment which tests over 40 functions.
3

System Configuration Layout

6626A PS Opt 908 Rack Kit E3663A Rail Kit 5062-4080 Rack Kit E3663A Rail Kit

40102A Filler Panel 437B

D2806B 15" Monitor w / E4475A Rack Mount Kit

E3909A Vectra Rack Kit

E4079A Keyboard-Mouse Tray (Retractable)

FINAL ALIGNMENT EMERGENCY

Emergency stop button

PNEUMATIC SHUTOFF

Barcode Reader

Fixture Drawer Opens Out Two Hand Tie Down Buttons Close Fixture And Start Alignment 46298N Work Surface

E1301A "B" Size Opt 908 Rack Kit (Rails Supplied)

83206A TDMA Cellular Adapter 8920B RF Test Set

Opt AXK Rack Kit E3663A Rail Kit Kick Panel Assembly Z2002-83208-1

83236A UP-Converter

Opt AX4 Rack Kit E3663A Rail Kit

Cell Phone Test

Questions arose on an installed base of 20 test systems as to whether the measurement process had excessive noise. In particular, the phone manufacturer felt the false failure rate was too high. A gauge capability study (measurement system analysis) was conducted to examine this issue.
5

Gauge Capability Studies

The major objective of a gauge study is to determine if a measurement procedure is adequate for monitoring a process. If the measurement error is small relative to the total process variation, then the measurement procedure is deemed adequate. Montgomery and Runger (1994), Burdick and Larsen (1997), Vardeman and VanValkenburg (1999)
6

Traditional Two-Factor Design

24 phones were randomly selected 6 test systems were randomly selected 2 repeated measurements were taken on each phone and test system 42 phone parameters were measured on each of the 288 design points

Traditional Two-Factor Design

A typical model in a gauge study is the random two-factor model

i=1,.,p; j=1,.,o; k=1,.r

Yijk Pi O j (PO )ij E ijk

is a constant

Pi, Oj, (PO)ij, Eijk are iid normal with means of zero and
2 2, 2 , 2 , variances P O PO E
8

Cell Phone Test

Phones are parts Test systems are operators Parts and operators are crossed since each phone and test system combination is replicated two times.

Expected Mean Squares

SV
Parts Operators PxO Error

df
p-1 o-1 (p-1)(o-1) po(r-1)

EMS
2 q r P E
2 q r O E

2 PO
2 PO
2 PO

or
pr

2 P
2 O

q PO

2 E

q E

2 E
10

Measures of Adequacy
Measure
Repeatability Measurement Error S/N Ratio P/T Ratio

Symbol
2 E

qE
2 PO 2 E

In terms of EMS

2 g O

[qqq ( p 1) O -2 qq ( P -

PO

p ( r 1) E ] /( pr )

wg

2 P

PO

) /(or )

hg-

/(USL LSL )
11

Criteria

S/N Ratio

Criterion: Lower bound of a 90% confidence interval for w >5 Criterion: Upper bound of a 90% confidence for h < .05

P/T Ratio

12

Confidence intervals for measures of adequacy are needed to apply the criteria. Measures of adequacy are functions of variance components

13

Confidence Intervals for Variance Components

Modified Large-Sample (MLS) methods

Graybill and Wang (1980) Burdick and Graybill (1992) Interval for w based on Gui, Graybill, Burdick, Ting (1995) Interval for h based on Graybill and Wang (1980)

14

Advantages of MLS

Closed form intervals Require only F-values Easy to compute in spreadsheet

Excel program that computes MLS intervals in two-factor random, mixed, and threefactor random available from Burdick

richard.burdick@asu.edu

15

Computation of R&R Parameters

User Inputs are in yellow: Desired Confidence Level (%) 2-sided tolerance width Two Factor Random Effects Model Factors Parts (DUT) Operators Interaction Reps Number of Levels 9 6 2 Mean Squares (MS) 74.095 9.021 1.802 0.191 90 20

Outputs: Factor Parts Operators Interaction Repeatability Meas. Error S/N Ratio P/T Ratio DF 8 5 40 54 MS Estimate Lower CL Upper CL Percent 81.17 28.70 57.64 13.67 18.83

74.095 6.024417 3.032825 17.92288 9.021 0.401056 0.120174 2.084657 1.802 0.8055 0.548039 1.26415 0.191 0.191 0.142946 0.270594 1.397556 1.040718 3.132987 2.076218 1.259792 3.618473 0.059109 0.051008 0.088501

Criteria for an "adequate" test process: S/N Lower CL > 5 P/T Upper CL < .05

Other Methods

Satterthwaite/Welch/Cochran Generalized inference/Surrogate variables

Zhou and Mathew (1994) Hamada and Weerahandi (2000) Chiang (2001)

Bayesian methods Bootstrap methods

17

Extensions

Comparisons across time/location Fixed vs. random operators More complex designs

Three-factor crossed Nested Attribute (pass-fail) data Truncated data Destructive testing
18

Other models

Comparisons Across Time/Location

Compare total variation after attempt to improve the measurement process Comparison of same measurement process used at two different locations

19

Comparisons Across Time/Location

The model is now

Ylijk M l Pi O j (l ) ( MP)li ( PO)ij (l ) Eijkl

i=1,.,p; j=1,.,o; k=1,.r; l=1,2

and Ml are fixed with M1+M2=0

Pi, Oj(l), (MP)li, (PO)ij(l), Eijkl are iid normal with means of zero and

variances

2 P,

2 , Ol

2 , MP

2 POl

2 , El
20

Comparisons Across Time/Location

To compare the different processes, we can compute a confidence interval for the ratio

2 O1 2 O2

2 PO1 2 PO 2

2 E1 2 E2

21

Comparisons Across Time/Location

Confidence intervals can be constructed using Cochran/Satterthwaite interval or MLS interval proposed by Ting, Burdick, and Graybill (1991). Details in Burdick, Allen, and Larsen (2002).

22

Fixed vs. Random Operators

Although it is customary to assume all effects are random, such an assumption is not always warranted. Although parts are typically random, in many cases operators are more properly considered as fixed effects.

23

Fixed vs. Random Operators

A simple modification to the operator degree of freedom allows one to use the same formulas used for the case of random operators. This modification is based on a chisquared approximation of a non-central chi-square random variable. Dolezal, Burdick, and Birch (1998)
24

More Complex Designs

Three-factor crossed designs Nested designs

25

Three-Factor Design

Consider the fabrication of magnetic tape for computerized data storage. In this study, o automated test stations (operators) are used to evaluate the quality of p tape heads (parts). In order to measure characteristics of the heads, t tapes are used in each test station. In this design, all p heads are measured with each of the test station/tape combinations.
26

Three-Factor Design

The ANOVA model is

Yijkl Pi O j Tk ( PO )ij ( PT )ik (OT ) jk ( POT )ijk Eijkl

i=1,.,p; j=1,.,o; k=1,.t; l=1,,r

fixed
Pi, Oj, Tk, (PO)ij, (PT)ik, (OT)jk, (POt)ijk, Eijkl are iid normal with means of zero and variances

, , ,
2 P

2 O

2 T

2 PO

2 PT

2 OT

2 POT

and

2 E
27

Three-Factor Design

An appropriate measure of adequacy (parts to total measurement error) is

2 O 2 T 2 PO

2 P 2 OT 2 POT 2 E

2 PT

28

Three-Factor Design

A confidence interval based on a combination of Satterthwaite and MLS methods appears to maintain stated confidence level in most situations. A generalized confidence interval also performs well. Details in Adamec and Burdick (2003)
29

Nested Designs

John (1994, p. 12) provides an example where b batches of wafers are manufactured, w wafers are sampled from each batch, each wafer is placed on a machine for p occasions, and r repeated measurements are collected on each placement. In this experiment, wafers are nested within batches, the placements are nested within wafers, and observations are nested within placements.
30

Nested Designs

The ANOVA model is

Yijkl Bi W j (i ) Pk (ij ) Eijkl

i=1,.,b; j=1,.,w; k=1,.p; l=1,,r

fixed
Bi, Wj(i), Pk(ij), Eijkl are iid normal with means of zero and

variances

2 , B

2 , W

2 , 2 P E
31

Nested Designs

An appropriate measure of adequacy (process to total measurement error) is

2 B 2 P

2 W 2 E
32

Nested Designs

Confidence intervals can be constructed using either the Satterthwaite/Cochran method or the MLS method proposed by Gui, Graybill, Burdick, and Ting (1995). Another alternative is to use generalized confidence intervals. The Satterthwaite/Cochran method will likely provide the shortest intervals, but in some cases will likely provide confidence coefficients less than the stated level.
33

Other Models

Attribute (pass-fail) data

Boyles (2001) Lai and Chew (2000) Mitchell, Hegemann, and Liu (1997) Phillips, Jeffries, Schneider, and Frankoski (1997) Bergeret, Maubert, Sourd, and Puel (2001)

Truncated data

Destructive testing

34

References

ADAMEC, E. and BURDICK, R. K. (2003). Confidence Intervals for a Ratio of Variance Components in a Gauge Study with Three Random Factors. To appear in Quality Engineering, March, 2003. BERGERET, F.; MAUBERT, S.; SOURD, P.; and PUEL, F. (2001). Improving and Applying Destructive Gauge Capability. Quality Engineering 14(1), pp. 59-66. BOYLES, R. A. (2001). Gauge Capability for Pass-Fail Inspection. Technometrics 43, pp. 223-229. BURDICK, R. K.; ALLEN A. E.; and LARSEN, G. A. (2002). Comparing Variability of Two Measurement Processes Using R&R Studies. Journal of Quality Technology, 34, pp. 97-105. BURDICK, R. K. and GRAYBILL, F. A. (1992). Confidence Intervals on Variance Components. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York. BURDICK, R. K. and LARSEN, G. A. (1997). Confidence Intervals on Measures of Variability in R&R Studies. Journal of QualityTechnology 29, pp. 261-273.

35

References

CHIANG, A. K. L. (2001). A Simple General Method for Constructing Confidence Intervals for Functions of Variance Components. Technometrics 43, pp.356-367. DOLEZAL, K. K.; BURDICK, R. K.; and BIRCH, N. J. (1998). Analysis of a Two-Factor R&R Study with Fixed Operators. Journal of Quality Technology 30, pp. 163-170. GRAYBILL, F. A. and WANG, C. M. (1980). Confidence Intervals on Nonnegative Linear Combination of Variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75, pp. 869-873. GUI, R; GRAYBILL, F. A.; BURDICK, R. K. and TING, N. (1995). Confidence Intervals on Ratios of Linear Combinations of NonDisjoint Sets of Expected Mean Squares. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 48, pp. 215-227.

36

References

HAMADA, M. and WEERAHANDI (2000). Measurement System Assessment via Generalized Inference. Journal of Quality Technology 32, pp. 241-253. JOHN, P. (1994). Alternative Models for Gauge Studies. SEMATECH report 93081755A-TR. LAI Y. W. and CHEW E. P. (2000). Gauge Capability Assessment for High-Yield Manufacturing Processes with Truncated Distribution. Quality Engineering 13(2), pp. 203-210. MITCHELL, T.; HEGEMANN, V.; and LIU, K.C. (1997). GRR Methodology for Destructive Testing and Quantitative Assessment of Gauge Capability for One-Side Specifications in Statistical Case Studies for Industrial Process Improvement; Czitrom, V. and Spagon, P. D., Eds; SIAM, Philadelphia, pp. 47-59. MONTGOMERY, D. C. and RUNGER, G. C. (1994). Gauge Capability and Designed Experiments. Part II: Experimental Design Models and Variance Component Estimation. Quality Engineering 6, pp. 289-305.
37

References

PHILLIPS, A. R.; JEFFRIES, R.; SCHNEIDER, J.; and FRANKOSKI, S. P. (1997). Using Repeatability and Reproducibility Studies to Evaluate a Destructive Test Method. Quality Engineering 10(2), pp. 283-290. TING, N.; BURDICK, R. K.; and GRAYBILL, F. A. (1991). Confidence Intervals on Ratios of Positive Linear Combinations of Variance Components. Statistics and Probability Letters 11, pp. 523-528. VARDEMAN, S. B. and VANVALKENBURG, E. S. (1999). Two-way Random-effects Analyses and Gauge R&R Studies. Technometrics 41, pp. 202-211. ZHOU, L. and MATHEW, T. (1994). Some Tests for Variance Components Using Generalized p-values. Technometrics 36, pp. 394402.

38