Torq~Smooth vs. Aluminum Parts Inc.

GD&T & SPC

TorqSmooth Transmission Co. and so the average variable position
Aluminum Parts Inc. are feuding over tolerance of the sample verified on the
a quality rejection from the first attribute gage was approximately Ø
production run of transmission AWD 0.59 (USLP Ø0.36 + ¯ XS Ø9.13 –
transfer case housing parts made for MMCS Ø8.9). Of course each hole had
TorqSmooth's new medium duty CVT a unique value for position tolerance
transmission. Receiving inspection at according to its size but every one of
TorqSmooth rejected 3000 housings the parts fit the gage.
claiming that 24% of the parts are out-
of-specification for the position of a The receiving inspector at
fastener clearance hole. They spot- TorqSmooth checked the size and
checked a 30 piece sample discovered position of the sample parts with a
the discrepancy then verified it coordinate measuring machine,
checking a larger sample. The quality presented the data in separate
control analyst predicted Aluminum histograms for size and position, and
Parts process capability for position of calculated the process capability
the mounting flange hole at 0.24 Ppk far below the minimum levels of ratios from the data. So why are process capability predictions from
Ppk required for submission 1.67 initial and 1.33 continuous. The TorqSmooth so different from Aluminum Products attribute gage
PPAP submission from Aluminum Parts stated that the position results?
specification was verified on every 10th piece with "functional gaging"
and records showed that there were zero non-conformances in the TorqSmooth
sampled pieces from the production run. TorqSmooth rejected the Sample Process Capability (Actual)
parts and informed Aluminum Parts Inc. to retrieve and promptly Size GDT Callout
replace the rejected parts. Aluminum Parts, confident of their quality MEAN 9.128464267 0.271298246 MEAN
measures, decided to re-check the same 300 piece sample on-site at STDEV 0.026836215 0.124766729 STDEV
TorqSmooth with the production attribute gaging. Again they found PP 3.11
no non-conformances. Does this story sound familiar? Ppu 3.37 0.24 Ppu
Ppl 2.84
Have you ever wondered why the go-position-gages that you Ppk 2.84 0.24 Ppk
purchase for your processes seem to consistently pass the product
that variables data and SPC analysis predict is defective? The
difference is not in the integrity of the measurement techniques,
attribute vs. variables data, rather it results from comparing product
M 8 Clearance Hole
LSLS USLS
variation to different limits. Geometric position tolerance go-gages
generate discreet data (pass-fail) by verifying feature positions to 100
their worst case physical boundary considering the limits for size and
position simultaneously while variables gages segregate the size and
80
position data and compare the statistical distributions of each to their
Frequency

respective specification limits separately.

60
The specification for the hole, n8.9-
n8.9-9.4 [j|n0.36m|A|B|C] 40
includes the tolerance modifier m which stands for "Maximum
Material Condition." It means that when the hole size is at its 20
maximum material condition or smallest hole size Ø 8.9, its
geometric tolerance is the minimum specified amount Ø 0.36. When 0
8.90
8.94
8.98
9.02
9.06
9.10
9.14
9.18
9.22
9.26
9.30
9.34
9.38
the hole size increases the geometric position tolerance increases
respectively because a larger hole can be a little further off location
than a smaller hole and still pass the fastener through to its threaded Feature Size
hole location. When the hole is at its largest size Ø 9.4 its geometric
tolerance increases to the maximum Ø 0.86 which equals Ø9.4
USLSize - Ø 8.9 LSLSize + Ø 0.36 USLPosition. M 8 Clearance Hole Position
MAX Position USLP
Virtual Condition
Ø 0.86 30
Ø8.54 Gage
Ø9.4 25
LMC Size 20
Frequency

15
Ø 8.9 10
MMC Size
5
Ø 0.36
MIN Position 0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.44
0.48
0.53
0.58

Aluminum Parts' attribute gage has an Ø 8.54 pin which is equal to
the "virtual condition" or inner boundary of the Ø 8.9 hole (Ø 8.9
MMC, LSLSize minus Ø0.36 USLPosition.). It is designed so that an Ø
8.9 hole that is off location by 0.36 will still fit on the gage. The
average measured diameter of the holes was approximately 9.13mm
Position Deviation
The equation that TorqSmooth used to predict capability of the hole
position treats the Upper Specification Limit as a constant value and
it disregarded the variable "bonus" tolerance. Aluminum Products

Page 1 of 4 spcandgdtman@yahoo.com
took full advantage of the variable tolerance by applying the variable interference of two normal distributions for stress and strength is
"bonus" tolerance physically with the attribute gage. In order for the
process capability predictions to be comparable both methods have figured from the equation: Z =
(µ S − µ I )
to address the variable portion of tolerance in the prediction. σ S2 + σ I2
where µI and σI are the mean and standard deviation of the stress,
Statistical indices such as Pp-Ppk and Cp-Cpk are commonly used
and µs and σs are the mean and standard deviation of the strength.
to compare process variation to specification limits and predict the
process potential and capability of a process period sample or a Figure 1
sequential production sample respectively with continuous data.
Strength

Frequency
Once the process is predictable, due solely to common cause Probability of
Distribution
variation, and is deemed 'in-control' an estimation of the process Interference
performance can be predicted from the period sample using the Stress
following equations: Distribution µs
USL − LSL  USL − X   X − LSL 
Pp = Ppk = MIN  ,   µl
Bilateral 6σ̂ Bilateral  3σˆ   3σˆ 
Tolerance Tolerance

Stress/Strength
 USL − X   X − LSL 
Pp = Not Ppk =   or 
  3σˆ 
 LSLS USLS
Unilateral
Tolerance
Applicable Unilateral  3σˆ    LBP USLP
Tolerance
Ppku Ppkl

Frequency
These formulas apply to normal distributions that have constant
specification limits. For bilateral tolerances the sample process
capability (Ppk) equals its potential (Pp) when the distribution's mean XP XS
is centered relative to the USL and LSL. The process capability of a
unilateral geometric tolerance on the other hand is derived from
figuring the encroachment of the distribution on only one of the
Tolerance
specified limits (either the USL or LSL). The process potential Pp has Constant Average Tolerance
typically been considered irrelevant for unilateral tolerances because Tolerance
predicting the encroachment of the distribution on the boundary
representing perfection, zero deviation, or infinity-the limit opposite
( )
Z = USLP − X P Z=
(USL + XP S )
-LSLS − X P
the MAX or MIN limit, does not examine the probabilities of a defect. σˆ P σˆ S2 + σˆ P2
Feature Size Similarly, the probability of a defect for a variable geometric
tolerance can be predicted by figuring the area of interference of two
8.54
8.57
8.61
8.64
8.68
8.71
8.75
8.78
8.82
8.85
8.88
8.92
8.95
8.99
9.02
9.06
9.09
9.12
9.16
9.19
9.23
9.26
9.30
9.33
9.37
9.40

distributions, the geometric deviation and its related feature size.

140
The Z values are easily converted to process capability indicator
120 Ppku by dividing it by three. According to the continuous data
collected by TorqSmooth the difference in predicted capability is:
100 LSLS USLS
0.36 − 0.271 ZUpper
Frequency

80 Z Upper = = 0.713 Ppku = = 0.24

LBP 0.1248 Constant 3
60 USLP Constant
Tolerance Tolerance
40 0.36 + 9.13 − 8.9 − 0.271
20
Z Intersection = = 2.50 Ppku = 0.83
Variable 0.02682 + 0.12482 Variable
Tolerance
0 Tolerance
Typical process capability predictions are derived by comparing the
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.21
0.24
0.28
0.31
0.34
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.48
0.52
0.55
0.58
0.62
0.65
0.69
0.72
0.76
0.79
0.83
0.86

portion of the area under the distribution's normal curve that is

Position Deviation vs Variable Tolerance
(Actual)
The relationship between feature size and variable tolerance Ø8.9
MMC = Ø0.36 MIN and Ø9.4 LMC = Ø0.86 MAX can be shown
graphically by overlaying distributions for position deviation and
feature size on the same histogram and aligning their associative
limits. We can see that the "Virtual Condition" aligns with a 0
position tolerance, the MMC or LSL size 8.9 aligns with the MIN
variable position tolerance 0.36 and and the LMC or USL size aligns
with the MAX variable position tolerance 0.86 respectively.
The classic reliability distribution model for stress vs. strength Figure
#1, mirrors that of the distribution parameters of a variable tolerance
and exemplifies the method to include the variable tolerance in a
process capability equation. The probability of failure is predicted by
figuring the area of interference of the two distributions. The area of
beyond the USLP to that of the total area. The attribute gage,
however, compares each parts total tolerance (specified + bonus) to
its position error. There is a big difference in the predicted
conformance to specification with TorqSmooth claiming 24%
defective vs. Aluminum Parts claim of 0% defective. This analysis
shows that the actual probability of a defect is probably closer to
Aluminum Parts claim than that of TorqSmooth but it is certainly not
0%. The ZUpper value 0.713 of the tolerance regarded "as constant"
translates to a defect rate of 23.79% therefore one would expect
0.2379*300 = 71.37 defects in the 300 piece sample. With the
tolerance analyzed "as variable" the ZIntersection of 2.5 translates to a
defect rate of 0.62% or 1.86 defects in 300. The fact that no defects
were discovered in the 300 piece sample could be more a testament
to the unreliability of attribute measurement predictions than
variables measurement especially when there are extreme
differences in the ratios of conforming to non-conforming product.
Aluminum Parts may have felt exonerated of the claim that 24% of
their parts were defective but the generally agreed acceptable quality
level of 1.33 Cpk still appeared to be a remote possibility if
continuous data was to be used to predict the process performance

Page 2 of 4 spcandgdtman@yahoo.com
capability. TorqSmooth consequently could demand attribute are the more skewed it appears. They discovered that it happens
inspection levels near 100% to insure that the minimum levels of because the computed position deviation is always a positive
capability are maintained. variable that has a boundary value of zero. An equivalent deviation
on either side of the target will produce the same positive position
Attribute Samples Required for deviation. Since a centered deviation cluster has more coordinates
Capability Predictions @ Confidence Levels closer to and on either side to the target it will appear skewed toward
10000000000 the target "zero."
1000000000 Sample Process Capability (Adjusted)
100000000 Actual Size Actual X&Y
10000000 Adjustment Adjustment
0 -0.09 X
Sample Size

1000000 -0.06 Y
100000 MEAN 9.128464267 0.179638728 MEAN
50.00%
10000 STDEV 0.026836215 0.098239124 STDEV
75.00% PP 3.11 1.81 Potential
1000
85.00% Ppu 3.37 1.39 Ppu
100
95.00% Ppl 2.84
10 Ppk 2.84 1.39 Ppk
99.99%
1 The histogram showed that the interference of the two distributions
dropped dramatically just by centering the coordinate distributions on
89

00

11

22

33

44

56

67

78

89

00
0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2. target and the variable tolerance capability formula now shows a

Capability Level
predicted capability improvement from 0.89 to 1.39 Ppk but they
You can see from the graph above that even with a confidence level wondered if it could be trusted since only the size distribution was
of 50% the attribute sample size for a capability of 1.33 must be normal the other, position, was non-normal (skewed).
>10,000 so what could Aluminum Parts do to demonstrate that their
process is better than the minimum level of capability 1.33 Ppk Feature Size
without inspecting all pieces with attribute gages? They improved the

8.54
8.57
8.61
8.64
8.68
8.71
8.75
8.78
8.82
8.85
8.88
8.92
8.95
8.99
9.02
9.06
9.09
9.12
9.16
9.19
9.23
9.26
9.30
9.33
9.37
9.40
process and used continuous data to predict process performance!
140

Aluminum Parts decided that rather than using go gages to check 120
every piece they would gear for up variables inspection, institute a
control plan for process monitoring, and use the variable tolerance 100
capability formulas to predict process performance. They also
Frequency

decided to monitor the X & Y coordinates of the position separately 80

so that control variables would match the machine adjustable
machine parameters. They observed the individual distributions for X 60
& Y and saw that they were both normal and "in-control" but slightly
40
"off target". Scatter plots of the X & Y coordinate data helped
visualize the position deviations. They adjusted each coordinate
20
distribution by its mean deviation X (-.09) & Y (-0.06) and
recomputed the position deviations to see the potential process 0
capability with X&Y means on target.
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.21
0.24
0.28
0.31
0.34
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.48
0.52
0.55
0.58
0.62
0.65
0.69
0.72
0.76
0.79
0.83
0.86
Coordinate Scatter (Actual)
Position Deviation vs Variable Tolerance
0.250
(Adjusted)

0.200 To estimate the error of the variable tolerance formula Aluminum

Parts decided to replicate a very large sample of the skewed position
distribution and variable tolerance and compare each instance in a
0.150
Monte-Carlo simulation to produce a pass/fail attibute just like the
production gage. Then they would compare the predicted PPM
Y Deviation

0.100 defective from the Monte-Carlo simulation to the "assumed normal"

continuous data prediction. From the Attribute Sample Size chart
they determined for a capability of 1.39 and a confidence level of
0.050
95% that the sample size should be roughly 100K. So 100K rows of
random normally distributed data were generated for X and Y each
0.000 at its observed standard deviation with a mean value of zero.
-0.200 -0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 Likewise random data was generated for the feature size at its
-0.050 observed values for its mean and stadard deviation. Then each row's
position deviation was computed 2*(X2+Y2)1/2 creating the skewed
position distribution and it was compared to the variable position
-0.100 tolerance to produce an attribute pass/fail statistic. In the simulation
X Deviation
73 of 100K failed (had position deviations greater than the variable
Aluminum Products immediately observed something interesting tolerance).
about the recomputed positions. What was interesting was that even
though the shape and variation of the individual coordinates From the following Ppk vs PPM Defective graph we can see that a
remained unchanged the shape of the computed position deviation normally distributed unilateral distribution with a capability ratio of
changed from more normal to more skewed and its standard 1.39 Ppk should yield a defect ratio less than 32 PPM but the Monte-
deviation dropped slightly. They realized that the more the Carlo simulation yielded an estimated 730 PPM defective which is
coordinates are off target the more the computed position deviation approximately 1.06 Ppk.
distribution appears normal and the more on target the coordinates

Page 3 of 4 spcandgdtman@yahoo.com
 Ppk vs. PPM Defective Feature Size
Normal Unilateral Tolerance

8.54
8.57
8.61
8.64
8.68
8.71
8.75
8.78
8.82
8.85
8.88
8.92
8.95
8.99
9.02
9.06
9.09
9.12
9.16
9.19
9.23
9.26
9.30
9.33
9.37
9.40
1000000 999968 977250 160
1000000 998650
XP XS
841345 140
PpuP PpuS
PPM Defective

120

100

Frequency
500000

80
LSLS USLS
158655 60

22750
1350 32 0 0
40 USLP
-2.00

-1.67

-1.33

-1.00

-0.67

-0.33

0.00

0.33

0.67

1.00

1.33

1.67

2.00
20

Ppk 0

0.00
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.21
0.24
0.28
0.31
0.34
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.48
0.52
0.55
0.58
0.62
0.65
0.69
0.72
0.76
0.79
0.83
0.86
The underestimate of defects may seem substantial 32 PPM vs. 730
PPM (32-730)/100000 = -0.07% but when compared to the current Position Deviation vs Variable Tolerance
practice of ignoring the variable portion of tolerance altogether it is (Adjusted)
significantly better. It compares to a 4.86% overestimate of defects Hole size is the one parameter that Aluminum Parts has little
that would occur if the variable tolerance was ignored. If this same concern over. The Process Potential is greater than 3.0 Pp and the
improved "coordinate centered skewed position deviation process is well centered in compliance with process improvement
distribution" was analyzed according to current robust data analysis guidelines. If Aluminum Parts wanted to increase the variable
practices for a non-normal distribution, a Box-Cox transformation tolerance for position all they would need to do is increase the
would conclude a Ppk of 0.55 and the error relative to the simulated average size of the hole but how much? Too little and the position
attribute gage results would be (49350-730)/1000000 = 4.86%. capability would be more vulnerable to USL defects and too much
Process Capability Analysis for Position X&Y Centered and the size would be more vulnerable to USL defects. Aluminum
(100K Monte-Carlo Simulation) Parts decided to target the feature size so that the predicted defects
Box-Cox Transformation, With Lambda = 0.5
would be minimized for both size and position simultaneously. They
Process Data USL* figured that if they set the equations for ZUpper Pos and Zupper Size equal
USL 0.360000 to each other and solved for the feature size that it would give them
USL* 0.600000 equal probabilities for a defect.
Mean 0.179044
Mean* 0.406603 X P − X S USL S − X S
Sample N 100000 Z = Z
StDev (Overall) 0.096816 Upper
σˆ P2 + σˆ S2 σˆ S Upper
StDev* (Overall) 0.117126 Position Size

Overall Capability σˆ S × X P + σˆ S2 + σˆ P2 × USL S

Pp * 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 XS =
PPU 0.55
PPL *
Observed Performance Expected Performance σˆ S + σˆ S2 + σˆ P2
PPM < LSL * PPM < LSL* *
Ppk 0.55 PPM > USL 48360.00 PPM > USL* 49349.96 To figure the optimum feature size you have to convert the mean
Cpm * PPM Total 48360.00 PPM Total 49349.96 position deviation to its equivalent feature size reference (0.18
Aluminum Parts still had a problem however, even if they adjusted +8.54) = 8.72
their coordinate distributions to the target and used the new formula .0268 × 8 .72 + .0268 2 + .0945 2 × 9 .4
to predict their capability the monte-carlo simulation showed that XS = = 9.254
they could only achieve an estimated 1.06 Ppk where TorqSmooth .0268 + .0268 2 + .0945 2
requires 1.67 at initial production authorization "PPAP" and 1.33
Convert the optimum feature size back to its equivalent mean
there-after for continuous production.
variable tolerance reference (9.254 - 8.54) = 0.714 and then plug the
values into the capabiliy formulas
Taking a fresh look at the entire problem Aluminum Parts realized
that the location of feature size distribution within its limits directly 0 .714 − 0 .18 9 .4 − 9 .254
controls the amount of variable tolerance in the position specification. Ppu P = = 1 .81 = = Ppu S
As the size approaches its MMC limit the variable tolerance is 3 × .0268 2 + .0945 2 3 × .0268
reduced and as it approaches the opposite limit the variable
tolerance increases. By monitoring and controlling the individual X&Yposition coordinates
Smaller Hole Larger Hole in production and by targeting the feature size to its optimum level
Size Distribution Larger Shaft Smaller Shaft Aluminum parts was able to increase the capability ratio to 1.81 and
decrease the predicted defects to 27 parts/per/billion.
Frequency

MMC LMC
Now Aluminum Parts is faced with another challenge, that is;
Less convincing TorqSmooth that even though the feature size is off
Geometric center and the proportion of the hole positions out-of-spec appear to
Tolerance More be too frequent with a typical capability analysis, you can trust that
Geometric the probability of finding a defect in this process is extremely remote.
Tolerance
Paul F. Jackson
Retired Product Development Engineer, Ford Motor Company
Tolerance

Page 4 of 4 spcandgdtman@yahoo.com