1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

NDC (Number of Distinct Categories)

Discussion in 'Gage R&R and MSA - Measurement Systems Analysis' started by leftoverture, Apr 22, 2016.

Tags:
  1. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    That is why there really should be an ndc as a function of tolerance to give the "statistical discrimination" as a function of tolerance. There really is no reason why their couldn't be...
     
  2. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    That's an interesting thought. But I'm not sure how you would calculate it. % SV has PV as the denominator. % Tol has the tolerance as the denominator. NDC doesn't involve the tolerance at all. But, you could ratio the PV to the tolerance and multiply that against the "normal" NDC and get one scaled against the tolerance.

    In other words, NDC in words means "Given the parts you have shown me and my gage discrimination, I can divide this stratification of parts up into X buckets." We could then say "And Y of these buckets will fit in your tolerance zone."
     
  3. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Bob, the more I think about this, the better I like it. It makes total sense. If the rule of thumb is you want your gage to be 20% of the tolerance, that would mean our new "NDCt" would need to be 5 or better. If I did a Gage R&R on an extremely accurate centerless grinding process that had a huge tolerance, I may have all my parts close together. Right at the center of the tolerance. My resulting NDC would be low (as would %SV). But I could then say "Even though my NDC was 3, 26 of these would fit in my tolerance zone, so I'm good."

    In reality, it would be just another way of looking at %SV vs %Tol that wouldn't be a percentage. But (at least to me) it's way easier to visualize it.
     
    Bev D likes this.
  4. Miner

    Miner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Greater Milwaukee USA
    New metric = ndcTol :)
     
    Bob Doering likes this.
  5. Bev D

    Bev D Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Maine
    No walker. That is essentially what I do when someone can't see it in the youden plot and they need a mathematical quantification. Not sure that that the %tolerance values are equal though - I would challenge you to think about that. Since the true % of the tolerance that is consumed by the measurement error is much less when you do the math correctly than when you do it incorrectly, a 20% consumption would allow a fairly bad discrimination to pass.
     
  6. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Stop clouding the issue with logic.

    That's not how automotive industry works.
     
  7. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Yes, you have more "statistical buckets" within your tolerance than within your process variation (or, more accurately, the amount of variation presented to the study). If you are using the gage for inspection, and not control, that should be good!
     
  8. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Although SPC control limits are related to process variation, I also prefer to see ndcSPC where you use UCL-LCL instead of PV, and you should have a value of at least 10 to assure adequate resolution for charting.
     
  9. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Use Tolerance (USL-LSL) instead of PV.
     
  10. Plague Doctor

    Plague Doctor Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Ukraine
    Hi all,

    We have the same problem with "good GRR but bad ndc" when we do a study for molding purchased parts due to their low part variation.

    1. What I understood from discussion above: ndc is not applicable (makes no sense) when you do %GRR to Tol?
    2. If it is really so, could you point where it is stated? It would be good to have some clear statement like "When you use %GRR to Tol do not consider ndc" in MSA manual to avoid long discussions with auditors. Because in ourcase most of the auditors are not very deep into MSA, they just know that "there must be ndc >5".
    3. Do you perform GRR for incoming inspection measurements for purchased parts?

    Thanks!
     
  11. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    1. ndc is calculated based on the variation of the samples you used in the study. It does not use tolerance. That is the only thing that shows that there is no relation. Want better ndc? use samples that have as much variance as your tolerance.
    2. There is no "clear statement" in the AIAG MSA book that you are looking for. If you want to avoid the conversation with your auditor, use samples in your gage R&R study that represent the entire tolerance range. If that is less than 5, you really do need another gage.
    3. Yes. It is the only way to prove the gage is the right one for the job.
     
    Plague Doctor likes this.
  12. Plague Doctor

    Plague Doctor Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Ukraine
    Thanks for the answer.
    For our processes, yes, we take the samples covering the entire tolerance range. We do %GRR to TV and we have good GRR and good ndc.
    For purchased parts we cannot take the samples with whole tolerance range for obvious reasons. We can choose only from parts we are delivered (and e.g. for plastic molding parts the dimensions are pretty stable, often covering only 1/10 of the tolerance or less within sample group.) That's why we do GRR to Tol here. we always get excellent GRR (<5%) and very bad ndc (1-2).
    The resolution of the gage is 0,001 and the tolerance is 0,1. I don't see that we need better gage here. The measurements accuracy by operators IMHO is acceptable. (GRR is the proof)
    My main question will be:
    In you opinion will it be Ok if on auditor's question "show me MSA for incoming inspection check" we will provide GRR to Tol without ndc value.
    On predictable question: "Why no ndc?" the answer will be "the only purpose for incoming inspection check is to define whether part is good or bad so just GRR is enough"

    If it's not Ok what would be your suggestions? Please no offers for better gage for described above and many other reasons:)
     
  13. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Try calculating the ndc using tolerance (TV= (USL-LSL)/6) instead of the PV from the samples. If that is >5 then you may be able to justify the data by stating as incoming material you do not have access to samples that represent to total ongoing expected process variance, and the tolerance is your best estimate.
     
  14. ncwalker

    ncwalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    North Carolina
    From the MSA 4th Edition, page 77:

    "For measurement systems whose purpose is to analyze a process, a
    general rule of thumb for measurement system acceptability is as
    follows:
    • Under 10 percent error – generally considered to be an acceptable
    measurement system.
    • 10 percent to 30 percent error – may be acceptable based upon
    importance of application, cost of measurement device, cost of
    repair, etc.
    • Over 30 percent – considered to be not acceptable – every effort
    should be made to improve the measurement system.
    Further, the number of distinct categories (ndc)32 the process can be
    divided into by the measurement system ought to be greater than or
    equal to 5.
    The final acceptance of a measurement system should not come
    down to a single set of indices
    . The long-term performance of the
    measurement system should also be reviewed using graphical
    analyses over time."​

    You are not analyzing a process. You are checking parts against a tolerance. Also, these are rules of thumb. Also, it says right in the book you can't say yea/nay on a set of indices. Something EVERYONE forgets. Everyone wants the magic bullet, that's not how this works. You need lots of things to consider. And further, you learn a lot more from the graphs than the numbers.

    From the MSA 4th Ed p. 116

    "The results of this percent total variation needs to be evaluated to
    determine if the measurement system is acceptable for its intended
    application.
    If the analysis is based on the tolerance instead of the process
    variation
    , then the Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility Report
    form (Figure 25) can be modified so that the right-hand side of the
    form represents the percent of tolerance instead of percent of total
    variation.
    In that case, %EV, %AV, %GRR and %PV are calculated
    Property of General Motors Internal Use Only
    Chapter III – Section B
    Variable Measurement System Study – Guidelines
    117
    by substituting the value of tolerance divided by six in the
    denominator of the calculations in place of the total variation (TV).
    Either or both approaches can be taken depending on the
    intended use of the measurement system and the desires of
    the customer.
    The final step in the numerical analysis is to determine the number of
    distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by the measurement
    system. This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals
    that will span the expected product variation."​

    I can't copy the formatting, but the blurb about % of tolerance is inset and flagged with an important point. What it is saying is that you report % Tol numbers (%EV, %AV, %GRR, and %PV) when you are querying a measurement system for suitability in checking against a tolerance.

    You may get hit with this parargraph, earlier in the document p. 39

    "The long-standing tradition of reporting measurement error only as a
    percent of tolerance is inadequate for the challenges of the marketplace
    that emphasize strategic and continuous process improvement
    . As
    processes change and improve, a measurement system must be reevaluated
    for its intended purpose. It is essential for the organization
    (management, measurement planner, production operator, and quality
    analyst) to understand the purpose of measurement and apply the
    appropriate evaluation.
    "​

    Which almost reads like %Tolerance isn't enough. But the context of this is in a continuous improvement environment. What they are saying is as you pursue your continuous improvement, you may need to improve your gaging to match it. If you don't, you won't KNOW if you CI efforts are working. Which is why they have added the final sentence. Doing your calculations on the incoming parts using %Tol and ignoring study variation and NDC is just fine. And your logic above is sound.
     
  15. Bob Doering

    Bob Doering Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    7
    You are correct - if you were the manufacturer - and not the purchaser - of a product, then you may have more of an interest in using PV instead of tolerance to have enough resolution to detect shifts in your process or aid continuous improvement. As a purchaser, there is so much sampling error from product on a dock that it is IMPOSSIBLE to detect the original process distribution to even know what statistics are applicable. That is easy to prove, but beyond the scope of this topic.
     
  16. karthikshastri

    karthikshastri New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi
    I am also facing a similar problem my MSA Rand R % is less then 10% but my NDC not more then 5
    We use a 0.01 vernier caliper
    I am also attaching my MSA report if any one can help me find whats going wrong
    We make Plastic parts from injection moulding machines

    We are using one piece from every hour out of 10 hours in a shift
     

    Attached File(s): 1. Scan for viruses before using. 2. Report any 'bad' files by reporting this post. 3. Use at your own Risk.:

  17. Atul Khandekar

    Atul Khandekar Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Location:
    Pune, India
    For the data on the first sheet of your file, the total range of all the measurements is just 0.07 (Max=277.31, Min=277.24) against tolerance of 2 (=277 +/- 1). Since PV is too low, you will have low nDC (refer nDC formula). You need to select parts in such way as to span the entire tolerance range or at least the expected process variation. If there is not much variation in the parts produced over 10 hours, you may want to consider picking parts over a longer period.

    OTOH, you will not get large/sufficient part variation if you process is highly capable. Are you using this measurement system for process control or is it used for final inspection ?
     
  18. johnnymo77

    johnnymo77 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2015
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I'm still learning about GRRs.

    The training material I have from Ford specifically says this about GRRs:
    When a process is highly capable and percent tolerance is used instead of percent study the criteria to have 5 distinct categories and 50% of the parts outside the blind spot of the gauge are not applicable.

    Highly capable is described as the manufacturing process is stable, in control, parts pulled represent the entire range of expected variation, and Ppk>=2.5. (Ford underlines this phrase.)

    Comments?
     

Share This Page