Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Volume 2017, Article ID 7237486, 15 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7237486
Research Article

Assessment of the Adequacy of Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility Study Using a Monte Carlo Simulation

1School of Information & Computer Engineering, Hongik University, 94 Wausan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul 04066, Republic of Korea
2School of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA
3Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Myongji University, 116 Myonggi-Ro, Cheoin-Gu, Yongin-Si, Gyeonggi-Do 449-728, Republic of Korea

Correspondence should be addressed to SeJoon Park; ten.liamnah@jspumnos

Received 7 March 2017; Accepted 20 June 2017; Published 15 August 2017

Academic Editor: J.-C. Cortés

Copyright © 2017 Chunghun Ha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. AIAG, Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual, 4th edition, 2010, http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Systems-Analysis-MSA-AIAG/dp/B004Z0V40G.
  2. D. C. Montgomery and G. C. Runger, “Gauge capability and designed experiments. Part I: basic methods,” Quality Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 115–135, 1993, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08982119308918710. View at Google Scholar
  3. D. C. Montgomery and G. C. Runger, “Gauge capability analysis and designed experiments. Part II: Experimental design models and variance component estimation,” Quality Engineering, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 289–305, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. R. K. Burdick and G. Larsen, “Confidence intervals on measures of variability in RR studies,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 261–273, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/6ab62569696a5aaf2e7c3d078b6e99c1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  5. D. Gorman and K. M. Bower, “Measurement System Analysis And Destructive Testing,” Six Sigma Forum Magazine, pp. 16–19, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  6. J.-N. Pan, “Determination of the optimal allocation of parameters for gauge repeatability and reproducibility study,” International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 672–682, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. F. Bergeret, S. Maubert, P. Sourd, and F. Puel, “Improving and applying destructive gauge capability,” Quality Engineering, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 59–66, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. Minitab, Data Analysis and Quality Tools User’s Guide 2, Minitab Inc., 2000.
  9. C. M. Borror, D. C. Montgomery, and G. C. Runger, “Confidence intervals for variance components from gauge capability studies,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 361–369, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. F. A. Graybill and C. M. Wang, “Confidence intervals of nonnegative linear combinations of variances,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 75, no. 372, pp. 869–873, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  11. SAS Institute, “SAS Technical Report P-229, SAS - STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6. 07,” Tech. Rep., SAS Publishing, 1992, http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/sas-technical-report-p-229-sas-stat-software-s-a-s-institute-incorporated/1014558798?ean=9781555444730. View at Google Scholar
  12. G. A. Milliken and D. E. Johnson, Analysis of Messy Data, Volume I: Designed Experiments, CRC Press, 2nd edition, 1984, https://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar?q=analysys+of+messy+data+milliken&btnG=&hl=ko&as_sdt=0%2C5#1.
  13. K. K. Dolezal, R. K. Burdick, and N. J. Birch, “Analysis of a two-factor R & R study with fixed operators,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 163–170, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/4779c01d797cabf0e397f9628a263da7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  14. M. Hamada and S. Weerahandi, “Measurement system assessment via generalized inference,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 241–253, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/0f0733ae998d9328b59078f57edf677d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  15. A. K. Chiang, “A simple general method for constructing confidence intervals for functions of variance components,” Technometrics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 356–367, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  16. L. Daniels, R. K. Burdick, and J. Quiroz, “Confidence intervals in a gauge RR study with fixed operators,” Journal of quality technology, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 179–185, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/3a7cd62a2f71bc321da92f1763835158/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  17. F.-K. Wang and E. Y. Li, “Confidence intervals in repeatability and reproducibility using the Bootstrap method,” Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 341–354, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. K. Burdick, E. A. Allen, and G. A. Larsen, “Comparing variability of two measurement processes using RR studies,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 97–105, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/8f3f897b4084bd2af582e7c186737db6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  19. W. G. Cochran, “Testing a linear relation among variances,” Biometrics. Journal of the Biometric Society, vol. 7, pp. 17–32, 1951. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  20. A. Chiang, “Improved confidence intervals for a ratio in an RR study,” Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 329–344, 2002, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/SAC-120003845. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. R. K. Burdick, C. M. Borror, and D. C. Montgomery, “A review of methods for measurement systems capability analysis,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 342–354, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/95d1b0694be0520e1da9f900eda08f61/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  22. E. Adamec and R. K. Burdick, “Confidence intervals for a discrimination ratio in a gauge RR study with three random factors,” Quality Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 383–389, 2015, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/QEN-120018036. View at Google Scholar
  23. R. K. Burdick, Y-J. Park, and D. C. Montgomery, “Confidence intervals for misclassification rates in a gauge RR study,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 294–303, 2015, http://search.proquest.com/openview/95ae579bd695c0f14bc0a7a8d32154df/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. View at Google Scholar
  24. W. H. Woodall and C. M. Borror, “Some relationships between gage R & R criteria,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 24, pp. 99–106, 2008, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qre.870/abstract. View at Google Scholar
  25. R. Browne, J. MacKay, and S. Steiner, Leveraged Gauge RR Studies. Technometrics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 294–302, 2010.
  26. J.-N. Pan, C.-I. Li, and S.-C. Ou, “Determining the optimal allocation of parameters for multivariate measurement system analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 20, pp. 7036–7045, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. De Mast and A. Trip, “Gauge R&R studies for destructive measurements,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 40–49, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. F. Van Der Meulen, H. De Koning, and J. De Mast, “Nonrepeatable gauge R&R studies assuming temporal or patterned object variation,” Journal of Quality Technology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 426–439, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. P. Wallström and A. Segerstedt, “Evaluation of forecasting error measurements and techniques for intermittent demand,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 625–636, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus