1

Author: Kotyk, Brian, K Title: Metrology Equipment Selection for Measuring the Material Thickness of

Company XYZ’s Next Generation JB3 Titanium Cathode Material The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial

completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Technology Management

Research Adviser: Diane Olson, Ph.D.

Submission Term/Year: Fall, 2011

Number of Pages: 72

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website

I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.

STUDENT’S NAME: Brian Kotyk

STUDENT’S SIGNATURE: ______________________ DATE: Dec 19, 2011

ADVISER’S NAME Dr. Diane Olson

ADVISER’S SIGNATURE: ____ ______________________ DATE: Dec 20, 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

___________________________________________________ ___________________________

(Director, Office of Graduate Studies) (Date)

2

Kotyk, Brian K. Metrology Equipment Selection for Measuring the Material Thickness of

Company XYZ’s Next Generation JB3 Titanium Cathode Material

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify a measurement device and process that is capable

of accurately measuring the overall thickness of thin metal foils with high surface finishes.

Company XYZ has specified the JB3 titanium cathode material which is grade two titanium and

.0009 +/- .0002” in thickness with a 23 Ra (roughness average) minimum. This foil had never

been manufactured prior to Company XYZ contracting to have Ullegheny who is a world leader

in titanium foil manufacturing. Ullegheny currently does not have the capability to measure the

JB3 titanium cathode overall thickness per Company XYZ’s specifications because their current

measurement system does not have the capability. In this study two devices will be evaluated as

well as Ullegheny’s current measurement device. The evaluations will consist of a Gage

Repeatability and Reproducibility, capability study, and measurement characteristic analysis to

determine the optimal device for Ullegheny to implement to measure the JB3 titanium cathode

material thickness.

3

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin Stout

Menomonie, WI

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank everybody at Company XYZ for being supportive of my research

project and assisting me through the process. I would also like to thank Ullegheny for assisting

me with the testing at their facility. My instructor Dr. Diane Olson did a wonderful job

mentoring me through the research paper and I could not thank her more. Last but not least I

would like to thank my wonderful girlfriend Marissa for keeping me motivated throughout the

long process of research and the writing process.

4

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................6

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................7

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................8

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................11

Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................12

Assumptions of the Study ..................................................................................................12

Definition of Terms............................................................................................................12

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................16

Methodology ......................................................................................................................16

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................17

Quality Costs ......................................................................................................................17

Measurement Devices ........................................................................................................18

Measurement Process.........................................................................................................21

Measurement Variation ......................................................................................................23

Concept of Gage R&R Study .............................................................................................29

Process Capability, Control Charts, and Statistical Tools .................................................31

Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................33

Measurement Device Selection and Descriptions ..............................................................33

Titanium Cathode Subject Selection and Description .......................................................39

Gage Reproducibility and Repeatability Test Description ................................................40

5

Capability Study Description .............................................................................................40

Gage R&R and Capability Study Data Analysis ...............................................................41

Quantitative Analysis of the Measurement System ...........................................................42

Limitations .........................................................................................................................43

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................44

Statistical Analysis: Gage R&R and Capability Study .....................................................44

Quantitative Analysis of the Measurement System Results .............................................47

Chapter V: Discussion ...................................................................................................................53

Measurement Device Selection .........................................................................................54

Limitations ........................................................................................................................55

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................55

References ......................................................................................................................................57

Appendix A: An Introduction to APA Style. Research Paper FAQS; Provided here

for your reference only; don’t include in your paper ......................................................58

Appendix B: Gage R&R Raw and Analysis Data .........................................................................61

Appendix C: Heidenhain work instructions for Ullegheny Ludlum for measuring the JB3

Company XYZ titanium cathode material thickness ......................................................67

6

List of Tables Table 1: Statistical Analysis Studies – Gage R&R and Capability Study……………………42

Table 2: Quantitative Analysis of the Measurement System……………………….…………43

Table 3: Statistical Analysis Studies – Gage R&R and Capability Study Results……………45

Table 4: Quantitative Analysis Results of the Measurement Systems………………………...47

7

List of Figures

Figure 1: Digital hand micrometer from Company XYZ’s Corlab…………………..….19

Figure 2: Direct Computer Controlled Coordinate Measuring Machine …………….….20

Figure 3: Heidenhain CT6001 precision height measurement system at Ullegheny.……21

Figure 4: The relationship between total, process and measuring variation.………….…24

Figure 5: Measurement Bias.…………………………………………………….………25

Figure 6: Measurement Stability.……………………..………………………….……...26

Figure 7: Measurement Linearity.……………………..………………………….…..…27

Figure 8: Measurement repeatability.……………………..………………………..……28

Figure 9: Measurement reproducibility.……………………..……………………..….…29

Figure 10: Breakdown of overall variation.……………………..……………..…..….…30

Figure 11: This figure is showing the percent tolerance calculation. .……………….…30

Figure 12: Pp and Ppk formulas.……………………..………………………….…….…31

Figure 13: Vollmer VMF1000 Measurement System at Ullegheny……………….…….34

Figure 14: Vollmer VMF1000 contact sphere points……………….…………………....35

Figure 15: Fowler THV Measurement system at Company XYZ’s Corlab….………..…36

Figure 16: Fowler THV Flat Anvil Contact Surfaces……………………..….………..…37

Figure 17: Heidenhain CT6001 Measurement system.…………………….……………..38

Figure 18: Heidenhain CT6001 Flat Anvil Contact Surface.……………………………..39

Figure 19: Capability study for the three measurement devices evaluated.…….….……..46

Figure 20: Capability study deviation chart for each of the measurement systems..……...46

8

Chapter I: Introduction

Company XYZ is an industry leader in producing human implantable defibrillators.

Implantable defibrillators are small battery powered pulse generator devices that deliver therapy

to the heart when it senses abnormal activity. The device is programmed to monitor heart rate

for rhythm abnormalities and when they occur the device delivers therapy. The device consists

of a pulse generator which holds the computer board, battery, and capacitors. Connecting the

pulse generator to the heart are the lead wires, which transfer the energy and signals to and from

the pulse generator unit. When therapy is needed the battery charges up the capacitors and the

energy jolt is delivered through the leads to the heart. The jolt resynchronizes the heart to a

normal beat. There are two forms of implantable defibrillators on the market today which treat

heart complications. The CRT-D (Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillator) device

treats patients with heart failure and need biventricular pacing. The ICD (Implantable

Cardioverter Defibrillator) device treats patients with sudden cardiac arrest due to ventricular

fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia.

One of the main components in the defibrillator that facilitates the delivery of the therapy

is the pair of capacitors in the pulse generator device. Company XYZ designs and manufactures

the capacitors at their Minnesota campus. There are two main materials in the capacitor which

are the aluminum anode and titanium cathode foils. Both materials are rolled to the desired

thickness at Ullegheny, which is a metal rolling supplier for Company XYZ. Ullegheny uses a

Z-Mill to roll the material to the specified thickness, width, and finish. The Z-Mill is a metal

rolling machine that operates with very small diameter work rolls with high pressure to reduce

the metal material thickness with pressure and tension. Once the processing of the material has

been completed the metal is spooled on a coil and shipped to Company XYZ. Once Company

9

XYZ receives the material at the capacitor manufacturing facility, the spools of metal are utilized

in a metal stamping press to produce the anode and cathode coupons which make up the

capacitor.

With each device generation, the capacitor requirements are to be smaller and deliver the

same or better energy output as the previous generation. Therefore, the tolerances of all the

components in the pulse generator tighten with each new generation. The layers of anodes,

cathodes, and paper insulators in the capacitor are held to a very tight tolerance because the

capacitor tolerance stack up does not allow excessive variation. If there is too much material

variation and the layers stack height is too tall, the can lid will not close. If the layers are not

thick enough, usually the capacitance requirement will not be met. The titanium cathode

function in the capacitor is to hold the energy with capacitance based off the total surface area.

The current generation capacitor is called the JB2 and the cathode has an overall thickness

specification of .0009 +/- .0002” with a surface finish of 10 +/- 2 Ra.

Company XYZ’s next generation capacitor called the JB3 which is smaller in volume but

still has the same capacitance as the current JB2. To achieve this requirement the engineers at

Company XYZ increased the JB3 titanium cathode surface area without increasing the overall

thickness. Through prototype testing the optimal JB3 titanium cathode specification was

determined to have a thickness of .0009 +/- .0002” with a surface finish of 23 Ra minimum. The

increased Ra specification from the JB2 to the JB3 significantly increased the surface area which

helps achieve the capacitance requirement. The JB2 titanium cathode material with a surface

finish of 10 Ra has high sheen. The JB3 is a very dull textured surface when viewed under a

microscope.

10

In the early development of the JB3 material, there was a correlation issue of the material

thickness between Company XYZ and Ullegheny who supplied the titanium cathode material.

Ullegheny was measuring the JB3 material thickness with the same measurement device and

following the same procedure to measuring the JB2 material but Company XYZ noticed a

significant measurement shift. Ullegheny is currently using a Vollmer VMF 1000 precision

height gauge to measure the material thickness. The Vollmer device is a vertical precision

measurement system that has two .500” spheres as the contact points to measure the material

thickness. The industry standard for measuring sheet metal material thickness at sheet metal

manufactures is the Vollmer contact and X-ray measurement devices.

Company XYZ’s Corlab (Corporate Laboratory) has a Fowler THV horizontal precision

measurement system. This is the system engineers use to measure the JB3 titanium cathode in

development. It has two flat anvil .250” diameter posts that contact the material to measure the

overall thickness. The major difference between the Fowler THV and the Heidenhain CT6001 is

that the Vollmer has spheres that contact the surface and the Fowler has round flat surfaces.

With the JB2 material Company XYZ and Ullegheny didn’t have correlation issues because the

material is extremely flat and has a very smooth high sheen finish. The JB3 material has a very

high surface finish which is very dull with an orange peel effect. The orange peel effect gives

the material a slight texture which is inherent from the high finish application. The correlation

issue comes from the two different measurement methods of sphere and flat contact methods.

When measuring the JB3 titanium material with the Vollmer it measures the base material

thickness and the Fowler measures the overall thickness and accounts for the material texture.

Thus the Vollmer measurements compared to the Fowler are consistently thinner.

11

Since Company XYZ is concerned with the overall material thickness, the Vollmer in its

current configuration cannot accurately measure thickness to the specified requirement. Also,

the sphere contact points on the Vollmer measurement device are not removable, which would

have been ideal to insert flat anvils to replicate the THV measurement contact surfaces. For

Ullegheny to accurately produce the JB3 titanium cathode per Company XYZ’s requirements

they needed to implement a measurement device capable of measuring the overall thickness

specification.

Two measurement systems were identified that would be able to measure the JB3

titanium cathode material thickness accurately and with a degree of repeatability. The two

systems identified are the Heidenhain CT6001 and the Fowler THV measurement devices.

These systems were designed to measure heights to a very high resolution which would

encompass the JB3 material thickness specification callout. According to the manufacturer

specifications the three measurement devices are accurate enough to measure the JB3 material

thickness’ total tolerance of .0004”.

Statement of the Problem

The problem is the industry standard measurement devices for measuring material

thicknesses at sheet metal manufacturers do not have the accuracy to measure extremely thin,

high surface finish, and tight tolerance metals. This study will evaluate different measurement

devices and establish a technique to accurately measure the thin metal materials.

12

Purpose of the Study

The titanium cathode in the next generation JB3 capacitor at Company XYZ has a

thickness specification of .0009 +/- .0002” with a surface finish of 23 Ra minimum. Ullegheny

has the current industry standard measurement device, which is not capable of accurately

measuring the overall thickness of the JB3 titanium cathode material. The purpose of the study

is to identify a metrology device and method to measure thin metal material with extremely tight

tolerances.

Assumptions of the Study

1. The metrology equipment was calibrated to its manufactures’ standards.

2. The data was measured by an engineer that is trained on the measurement device.

3. The data is collected in an environment that was constant to limit the variables

such as temperature and humidity.

4. The devices that are to be evaluated need to be affordable for a raw material

supplier, and the method of measurement needs to be efficient for manufacturing.

5. The only contributions to measurement variation are the operator and the

measurement device.

Definition of Terms

Accuracy - The closeness of agreement between an observation value and the accepted

reference value (MSA, 2010).

Bias - The difference between the observed average of measurements (trials under

repeatability conditions) and a reference value; historically referred to as accuracy. Bias is

evaluated and expressed at a single point within the operating range of the measurement system.

This also can be systematic error favoring a particular result (MSA, 2010).

13

Calibration – A set of operations that establish, under specified conditions, the

relationship between a measuring device and a traceable standard of known reference value and

uncertainty. Calibration may also include steps to detect, correlate, report, or eliminate by

adjusting any discrepency in accuracy of the measuring device being compared (MSA, 2010).

Capability – An estimate of the combined variation of measurement errors (random and

systematic) based on short-term assessment of the measurement system (MSA, 2010).

Cathode – Electrode through which electric current flows out of a polarized electrical

device.

Control Chart – A graph of process characterstics, based on sample measurements in

time order, used to display the behavior of a process, identify patterns of process variation, assess

stability, and indicate process direction (MSA, 2010).

Data – A collection of observations under a set of conditions that may be variable (a

quantified value and unit of measure) or discrete (attribute or counted data such as Pass/Fail or

Good/Bad) (MSA, 2010).

Drift – The actual change in the measurement value when the same characteristic is

measured under the same conditions, same operator, at different points in time. Drift indicates

how often a measurement needs recalibration (MSA, 2010).

Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility – An estimate of the combined variation of

repeatability and reproducabiilty for a measurement system. The Gage R&R variance is equal to

the sum of within-system and between-system variances (MSA, 2010).

Linearity – The difference in bias errors over the expected operating range of the

measurement system. In other terms, linearity expresses the correlation of multiple and

independent bias errors over the operating range (MSA, 2010).

14

Measurement System – A collection of instruments or gages, standards, operations,

methods, fixtures, software, personnel, environment, and assumptions used to quantify a unit of

measure or fix assessment to the feature characteristic being measured; the complete process

used to obtain measurements (MSA, 2010).

Measurement System Error – The combined variation due to gage bias, repeatability,

reproducability, stability and linearity (MSA, 2010).

Metrology – The science of measurement (MSA, 2010).

Out-of-Control – State of a process when it exhibits chaotic, assignable, or special cause

variation. A process that is out of control is statistacally unstable (MSA, 2010).

Part Variation – related to measurement systems analysis, part variation represents the

expected part-to-part and time-to-time variation for a stable process (MSA, 2010).

Performance – An estimate of the combined variation of measurement errors based on a

long-term assessment of the measurement system; includes all significant and determinable

sources of variation over time (MSA, 2010).

Pp – Process Performance. A simple and straightforward indicator of process

performance (MSA, 2010).

Ppk – Process Performance Index. Adjustment of Pp for the effect of non-centered

distribution (MSA, 2010).

Precision – The net effect of discrimination, sensitivity and repeatability over the

operating range of the measurement system (MSA, 2010).

Process Control – Operational state when the purpose of measurement and decision

criteria applies to the real-time production to assess process stability and the measurement or

15

feature to the natural process variation; the measurement result indicated the process is either

stable or “in-control” or “out-of-control” (MSA, 2010).

Process Capability – compares the output of an in-control process to the specification

limits by using capability indices (MSA, 2010)

Repeatability – The common cause, random variation resulting from successive trials

under defined conditions of measurement. Often referred to as equipment variation, although

this is misleading. The best term for repeatability is within-system variation when the conditions

of the measurement are fixed and defined – fixed part, instrument, standard, method, operator,

environment, and assumptions. (MSA, 2010)

Reproducibility - The variation in the average of measurements caused by a normal

condition of change in the measurement process. Typically, it has been defined as the variation

in average measurements of the same part between different appraisers using the same measuring

instrument and method in a stable environment. This is often true for manual instruments

influenced by the skill of the operator. It is not true, however, for measurement processes where

the operator is not a major source of variation. For this reason, reproducibility is referred to as

the average variation between-systems or between-conditions of measurement (MSA, 2010).

Resolution – The capability of the measurement system to detect and faithfully indicate

even small changes of the measured characteristic.

Sensitivity – Smallest input signal that results in a detectable output signal for a

measurement device.

Specification – explicit set of requirements to be satisfied (Benbow, 2002).

Stability – Measurement stability addresses the necessary conformance to the

measurement standard or reference over the operating life of the measurement system.

16

Tolerance – Allowable deviation from a standard or nominal value that maintains fit,

form, and fuction (MSA, 2010).

Limitations of the Study

In this study, the measurement devices tested were limited to two devices that are capable

of meeting the JB3 material thickness specification. There may be more accurate measurement

devices on the market but the ones chosen to be tested in this study are industry proven devices.

The measurement devices also had to be economical because at the end of the study, Ullegheny

is to purchase and implement the optimal device and price is a concern. Also, the measurement

devices that were selected to be tested didn’t need any abnormal environmental controls.

Methodology

This study is to evaluate two different metrology devices to accurately measure the JB3

titanium cathode material per Company XYZ’s design specifications. The devices will be

analyzed with their measurement error characteristics, the cost, ease of use, and calibration

requirements. The quantitative analysis consists of performing a Gage Repeatability and

Reproducibility study, process capability analysis, and range deviation analysis of a standard

material.

17

Chapter II: Literature Review

Continuous improvement is one of the core parts of quality in manufacturing. When it

comes to metrology engineering it is a continuous battle to limit the gauge variation, which will

in turn reveal a more accurate manufacturing process capability.

Quality Costs

The benefits of quality are endless and some of the main drivers are cost savings,

throughput efficiency, yield savings, and customer satisfaction and confidence. To achieve the

most effective quality improvements, management needs to ensure the organization has an

understanding of the importance of quality and its benefits. Quality cost reports can be used to

point out the strengths and weaknesses in a quality organization. With this information

identified, it can be used as leverage to make improvements across an organization. Any

reduction in quality costs will have a direct impact on the bottom line margins and is an

important issue to an organization (Benbow, 2002).

Quality costs are a measure of the costs specifically associated with the achievement or

non-achievement of a product or service. Quality costs are broken down into four different

categories:

Prevention costs are the costs of all activities specifically designed to prevent poor

quality in products or services

Appraisal costs are the costs associated with measuring, evaluating, or auditing

products or services to assure conformance to quality standards and performance

requirements.

Failure costs are those costs resulting from products or services not conforming to

requirements or customer needs

18

Total quality costs are the sum of these costs: prevention, plus appraisal, plus failure.

It represents the different between the actual cost of a product or service and what

the reduced cost would be if there weren’t any failures of product or quality defects.

(Benbow, 2002)

Measurement Devices

The measurement device selection is the most important aspect of measurement system

analysis. The quality of the measurement system is based on the statistical properties of the data

it produces over time (MSA, 2010). Identifying the sensitivity or accuracy of the device is

important and there is a common practice to determine this requirement. The commonly known

Rule of Tens states that measurement instrument discrimination should divide the total tolerance

or process variation into ten parts or more (MSA, 2010).

Common industry standards to measure sheet metal are hand tools such as calipers,

digital micrometers, and drop indicators. In each of the hand tool categories they range from

analog to highly sophisticated digital pressure sensing devices. Depending on the device type,

some of these hand tools can be very accurate, however the inspector can introduce a lot of

variation due to the manual measurement technique. For instance, a digital micrometer is screw

driven and depending on how tight the screw is applied to a thin metal material can significantly

change the readout value. Most hand tool measurement devices are relatively cheap compared to

other fixed metrology devices. Hand tool measurements are usually very simple to use and

commonly found in the sheet metal manufacturing industry. Hand tools, such as the one

depicted in Figure 1, are used to give a quick reference to the material thickness but are known

not to be accurate enough for final verification.

19

Figure 1. Digital hand micrometer from Company XYZ’s Corlab

Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) are very accurate vision or touch probe

metrology machines. Usually CMMs are either user controlled or computer controlled systems.

Measurements are taken as individual points by a touch probe, optically, or with a laser. They

can be programmed manually, then operated in DCC (Direct Computer Controlled) mode which

is very repeatable and takes out the human error of interaction. There is little human interaction

besides loading the part onto a fixture or location on the machine. Once the part is loaded on the

CMM an automated program measures the part. Although a CMM, such as the one pictured in

Figure 2, would be a great way to measure the material thickness of sheet metal, they are not

commonly used because of cost and programming complexities. Also a measurement system

20

like this would be overkill because there are other measurement systems which are much smaller

and require less stringent environmental requirements.

Figure 2. Direct Computer Controlled Coordinate Measuring Machine

The industry standard for measuring the thin metal foils is precision height gauges.

These machines are very similar to a digital height indicators but are more accurate and

repeatable. Some of these devices are manually operated, where some have electronic actuators

to regulate the pressure applied to a material. Most systems come complete with a granite base,

plunger actuator, and a digital readout display. Some systems have a plunger that meets a granite

base and some have two contacts that read the material thickness between. Depending on the

application and measurement, the different contact methods need to be evaluated. The precision

21

height gauges are more expensive than the typical hand tool, but less expensive than a CMM.

Like hand tools, the precision height gauges like that shown in Figure 3 are very easy to operate

and have less stringent temperature and humidity requirements.

Figure 3. Heidenhain CT6001 precision height measurement system at Ullegheny

Measurement Process

A measurement process is a repeated application of a test method with a measurement

system. A robust test apparatus and well defined work instruction are essential. A measuring

system should be able to provide accuracy capabilities that will assure the reliability of a

measurement. (MSA, 2010)

22

Readout

Readouts consist of indicators, digital readout, and recordings to display the measurement

value. Adequate resolution is the degree to which small increments of the measured quantity can

be discriminated in the instrument output. This is one very important element to evaluate when

trying to identify a measurement system. A typical rule is one digit greater than the least

significant digit of the specification.

Error in Measurement

The difference between the indicated value and the actual value of a measurement quality

is error in measurement. Systematic errors are those not usually detected by repetition of the

measurement system. It is very important to understand all known sources of error in a

measurement system. The requirement of precision measuring devices is that it should be able to

represent, as accurately as possible, the dimension it measures. There may be small

measurement error but that is why the 10:1 rule is highly recommended when selecting a

measurement device (Benbow, 2002).

Accuracy

Accuracy is the degree of agreement about individual or group measurements with an

accepted reference or master value. “Measurement science encompasses two basic approaches

for determining conformity to measurement accuracy objectives: (1) an engineering analysis to

determine all causes of error; (2) a statistical evaluation of data after stripping or eliminating the

errors revealed by the engineering analysis” (Benbow, 2002, p. 144).

23

Precision

Precision is the degree of mutual agreement between an individual measurement made

under prescribed conditions or how well identically performed measurement agrees with each

other.

“This concept applies to a process or a set of measurements, not to a single measurement,

because in any set of measurements, the individual results will scatter about the mean.

Since the means of the results from groups of measurement tend to scatter less about the

overall mean the individual results, reference is commonly made to the precision of a

single measurement as contrasted with the precision of groups of measurements, but this

is a misuse of the term. What is really meant is the precision of a set of single

measurements or the precision of a set of groups of measurements.” (Benbow, 2002, p.

185)

Consistency

Consistency of the rading on the instrument scale when the same dimension is being

measured is necessary. This can easily be tested with any measurement device by making sure

the device is at its zeroed state. Then move the scales to its maximum extent and return it back

to the zero location. This may be repeated as needed but each time the device is returned to it’s

zero location the readout should read excactly the same each time (Benbow, 2002).

Measurement Variation

Measurement system analysis is one overlooked characteristic in many organizations.

Assumptions that a system is capable of measuring a certain feature can lead to inaccurate

analysis and conclusions when making data driven decisions. When inspectors measure a part

inconsistently they may be rejecting good parts and accepting bad parts which are a quality and

24

business risk. Inadequate measurement system performance can make the process capability

analysis less satisfactory because of the measurement variation induced, shown in Figure 4.

“Measurement system analysis assesses the statistical properties of repeatability, reproducibility,

bias, stability, and linearity. Collectively, these techniques are sometimes referred to as Gage

R&R (repeatability and reproducibility)” (Breyfogle, 1999, p. 205).

Figure 4. The relationship between total, process and measuring variation (MSA, 2010)

Bias, shown in Figure 5, is the difference between the true value and the observed

average of measurements on the same characteristic on the same part. It is a measure of the

systematic error of the measurement system and is the main concept of a Gage R&R study. “The

contribution to the total error comprised of the combined effects of all sources of variation,

known or unknown, contributes to the total error and tends to offset consistently. Predictably all

results of repeated applications are of the same measurement process at the time of the

measurements.” (MSA, 2010, p. 206)

Possible causes for induced bias are:

Instrument needs calibration

Worn instrument, equipment, or fixture

Worn or damaged master gage can lead to error in master gage

Product/Process

Variation

+

Measurement Variation

=

Observed

Variation

25

Improper calibration or use of the setting master

Poor quality instrument due to inadequate design

Linearity error

Wrong gage for the application

Different measurement method such as setup, loading, clamping, technique

Measuring the wrong characteristic

Distortion (gage or part)

Environment concerns such as temperature, humidity, vibration, cleanliness

Violation of an assumption, error in an applied constant

Application such as part size, position, operator skill, fatigue, observation error

(MSA, 2010)

Figure 5. Measurement bias (MSA, 2010)

Stability, or drift, depicted in Figure 6, is the total variation in the measurements

observed with a measurement system on the same parts when measured over an

extended period of time (MSA, 2010). Stability is one of the areas of concern when

26

measuring a feature in manufacturing. If the measurement system was drifting not the

process it can create a lot of confusion to solve the drifting process which was really the

measurement system.

Possible causes for induced bias are:

Instrument needs calibration, reduce the calibration interval

Worn instrument, equipment or fixture

Normal aging or obsolescence

Poor maintenance – air, power, hydraulic, filters, corrosion, rust, cleanliness

Distortion

Figure 6. Measurement Stability (MSA, 2010)

Linearity, as shown in Figure 7, is the difference of bias through the expected operating

range of the equipment. Linearity can be thought of as a change of bias with respect to size

(MSA, 2010). The measurement system may be accurate at measuring a small range but its

important to test the linearity by measuring the device at the maximum and minimum ranges of

the feature you’re trying to analyze.

27

Possible causes for linearity error include:

Instruments that need calibration

Worn instrument, equipment or fixture

Worn or damaged master gage or error in master gage

Distortion changes with the part size (MSA, 2010)

Figure 7. Measurement linearity (MSA, 2010)

Repeatability, demonstrated in Figure 8, refers to the variability within the appraiser. It

is also the variation in measurements obtained with one measurement instrument when used

several times by one appraiser while measuring an identical characteristic on the part. The

repeatability is within the system variability and this is analyzed with a fixed part and appraiser

(MSA, 2010).

Possible causes for poor repeatability include:

Within-part: form, position, surface finish, taper, sample consistency

Within-instrument: repair; wear, equipment or fixture failure, poor quality or

maintenance

28

Within-standard: quality, class, wear

Within-method: variation in setup, technique, zeroing, holding

Within-appraiser: technique, position, lack of experience, manipulation skill or

training, feel, fatigue

Within-environment: short-cycle, fluctuations in temperature, humidity, vibration,

lighting, cleanliness

Wrong gage for the application (MSA, 2010)

Figure 8. Measurement repeatability (MSA, 2010)

Reproducibility is referred to as the variability between the appraisers, pictured in

Figure 9. Reproducibility is typically defined as the variation in the average of the

measurements made by different appraisers using the same measurement instrument when

measuring the identical feature on the same part (MSA, 2010). For automated measurement

systems often the operator is the main source of variation.

Potential sources of reproducibility error include:

Between parts: average difference when measuring types of parts A, B, C, etc.,

using the same instrument, operators, and method.

29

Between instruments: average difference using instruments A, B, C, etc., for the

same parts, operators, and environment.

Between standards: average influence of different setting standards in the

measurement process.

Between methods: average difference caused by changing point densities, manual

versus automated systems, zeroing, holding or clamping methods.

Between appraisers: average difference between appraisers A, B, C, etc., caused

by training, technique, skill and experience.

Between environment: average difference in measurements over time 1, 2, 3 etc.,

caused by environmental cycles (MSA, 2010)

Figure 9. Measurement reproducibility (MSA, 2010)

Concept of Gage R&R Study

A Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility study is an estimate of the combined variation

of repeatability and reproducibility. This in another way is the variance equal to the sum of

within system and between system variances. A Gage R&R test can be performed to identify the

root cause of the problem in a process, and a breakdown of that data can be seen in an example

30

in Figure 10. Measurement system variation can be described by location and width or spread

variation (Benbow, 2002).

Overall Variation

Measurement

System Variation

Variation due to

Gage

REPEATABILITY

Variation due to

Operators

REPRODUCIBILITY

Operator

Operator by Part

Part-to-Part

Variation

Figure 10. Breakdown of overall variation (MSA, 2010)

The total variation for the Gage R&R study is calculated by summing the square of both

the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) variation and the part-to-part variation and taking the

square root. The Gage R&R formula used across the industry is the ANOVA method, shown in

Figure 11. This method is a standard statistical technique and it can be used to analyze

measurement error and other sources of variability of data in a measurement system. The

analysis can be broken down into four categories parts, appraisers, interaction between

appraisers, and replication error due to the gage (MSA, 2010).

100LSLUSL

*15.5Tolerance% MS

I I

I I

I I I

I I

I I

31

Figure 11. This figure is showing the percent tolerance calculation. Note the 5.15 standard

deviations accounts for 99% of measurement system variation (MSA, 2010)

Gage R&R studies are very common in the manufacturing industry to prove whether a

measurement system is capable of measuring a specification. Typically Gage R&R studies are

performed in the early development of a component to verify they pass the specified

requirements. If the Gage R&R passes the requirements, it helps prove that the parts measured

are more representative of the manufacturing process and not due to measurement variation

introduced which could skew the values.

Process Capability, Control Charts, and Statistical Tools

The process capability or performance study is how a process is assessed in respect of the

specifications. Process capability is analyzed a few different ways and is very sensitive to the

input value for the standard deviation. Also, depending on how the data was collected, it needs

to be analyzed in a certain manner. There are ways of analyzing a process to itself, and also the

process to a given specification. Pp and Ppk outputs, shown in Figure 12, are medical device

industry standards for analyzing a process. The Pp is the process capability and the Ppk is the

process capability with respect to how centered the process is to the tolerance specification.

Figure 12. Pp and Ppk formulas. σ = stdev(Xi) (MSA, 2010)

32

Process capability is a way of analyzing a process to determine whether it is in control.

Instead of measuring each part manufactured with a statistical sample and analyzing the Pp and

Ppk, the entire lot can be accurately depicted.

Today there are many statistical tools to analyze the process capability such as software

programs like QC Cal and Minitab. These tools are used to make data driven decisions so

internal validation testing can be performed. These tools are widely used in the manufacturing

industry today to determine the process capability, which is very beneficial to the supplier and

customer. The supplier can benefit from seeing a process shift and fixing or adjusting the

process before the product goes out of control. If the product goes out of control there will be

scrapped material and time wasted. The supplier can also better predict machine wear and

preventative maintenance.

33

Chapter III: Methodology

The problem is the industry standard measurement devices for measuring material

thicknesses at sheet metal manufactures do not have the accuracy to measure extremely thin,

high surface finish, and tight tolerance metals. There will be two systems evaluated that are

benchmarked to the current Vollmer measurement system. First, a Gage R&R will be performed

on each system to prove that it’s capable of holding the necessary tolerance. Second, a capability

analysis will be performed to show the measurement shift and to see the difference between the

systems. Finally, a quantitative analysis about the measurement system’s characteristics based

on cost, ease of use, and calibration requirements. These tests will help identify the

measurement system that is needed to properly measure the JB3 titanium cathode material at

Ullegheny.

Measurement Device Selection and Descriptions

Vollmer VMF1000. The Vollmer VMF1000, which is the current thickness

measurement device at Ullegheny, has been in service over fifteen years. Even though the

device is relatively old, it still is an accurate measurement system. According to Vollmer, the

accuracy of the VMF1000 is .00001” which is accurate enough to measure the JB3 titanium

cathode thickness. (America, 2002) As stated earlier in the paper, this device is not optimal

because of the two .500” spheres it has for contact points to measure the material thickness.

These contact spheres are not able to be replaced with flat anvil contacts which are required to

accurately measure the overall material thickness.

Measuring the foil thickness is relatively easy with the Vollmer system pictured in Figure

13. The two contact spheres, shown in Figure 14, have a constant spring load to mate them. A

supplied tool is used to spread the contact points. Once the contact points are spread, a foil

34

sample can be inserted between the points and the contact points can be gently lowered to the

surface of the material. If the contact points are slammed onto the surface it can leave a dent and

also give false readings. As long as the contact points are lowered slowly onto the material

surface, the Vollmer gives very repeatable results. The measurement taken is then shown on a

digital readout display which has a resolution to .00001”. (America, 2002).

Figure 13. Vollmer VMF1000 measurement system at Ullegheny

35

Figure 14. Notice the Vollmer VMF1000 sphere contact points circled in the image

Fowler THV. The Fowler THV shown in Figure 15 is a horizontal precision

measurement system that has two flat anvil .250” in diameter posts, shown in Figure 16, that

contact the material to measure the overall thickness. This is the current thickness measuring

device at Company XYZ’s Corlab. Company XYZ chose this device for calibrating gauge

blocks, gauge pins, and measuring precision lengths. The THV is a very versatile measuring

device that is capable of measuring the JB3 titanium cathode thickness with an accuracy rating of

.000005”.

Measuring the material thickness with the THV can be somewhat complicated because of

the setup requirement. Since the contact points can be switched out to measure different

36

characteristics, the system is very versatile. A setscrew on each of the anvils holds the posts in

place, and it is essential that the setscrew is tight so posts do not move while measuring. When

measuring the JB3 titanium cathode the .250” diameter flat anvil posts must be used. Since there

are two contact surfaces meeting each other, the calibration of how the two surfaces meet up is

very critical to the accuracy of the machine. The calibration company inscribes lines on the

posts which need to perfectly line up when setting up the machine.

Once the machine is set up, the force of the contact points can be adjusted. It has been

determined that ten foot pounds of force is necessary. To open and shut the contact surfaces a

round wheel is simply turned and a piece of material can be inserted between the surfaces. The

measurement taken is then shown on a digital readout display which has a resolution to .000010”

(Fowler, 2011).

37

Figure 15. Fowler THV measurement system at Company XYZ’s Corlab

Figure 16. The Fowler THV’s two .250” diameter flat anvil contact surfaces

Heidenhain CT600. The Heidenhain CT6001 pictured in Figure 17 is a precision length

gauge that uses a plunger actuator in the vertical direction that contacts a granite surface, shown

in Figure 18. This system is very similar to the THV but instead of being horizontal it is a

vertical measurement system. The Heidenhain CT6001 was chosen to be in this study because it

was recommended by Company XYZ’s calibration company as an alternative to the THV

system. The Heidenhain can also be used for calibrating gauge blocks, gauge pins, and

measuring precision heights. The Heidenhain CT6001 has an accuracy of .000004” which is

very capable of measuring the JB3 titanium material thickness specification.

The Heidenhain has the versatility of changing out the contact points but it is very simple

because the anvils are threaded. When measuring the JB3 titanium cathode material thickness

38

the .250” flat anvil must be utilized. The controller is used to raise and lower the plunger

actuator and it needs to be set at the ten foot pounds of force mode. To measure the foil, simply

place the foil on the granite surface and using the controller lower the anvil until it contacts the

material. The measurement taken is then shown on a digital readout display which has a

resolution to .00001” (Heidenhain, 2011).

Figure 17. The Heidenhain CT6001 measurement system at Ullegheny

39

Figure 18. The Heidenhain .250” diameter flat anvil utilized to measure the JB3 titanium cathode

material thickness.

Titanium Cathode Subject Selection and Description

The titanium foil samples that were selected for the Gage R&R and the capability study

were of grade two titanium of different thicknesses. The ten Gage R&R samples needed to

represent normal process variation and also have passing and failing parts. The samples ranged

from .0006” to .0014” in thickness to span the entire tolerance band and outside the tolerance

band to ensure the measurement system can accurately depict the thickness. The surface finishes

for all the samples were 30 Ra minimum, which is representative of the production JB3 titanium

cathode material. The thirty samples for the capability study were the best effort JB3 titanium

cathode material produced by Ullegheny. Ullegheny cannot define the manufacturing rolling

process until a measurement system is identified and implemented. Once the manufacturing

rolling process is set, Ullegheny will be able to produce production equivalent material. All of

40

the titanium cathode samples will be of the production width which is 1.000” and cut to a length

of 4.000”.

Gage Reproducibility and Repeatability Test Description

The gage reproducibility and repeatability test was performed per Company XYZ’s

internal procedure, which complied with ISO 13485 and the FDA regulations. The Gage R&R

test was performed on the Heidenhain CT6001, Vollmer VMF1000, and the Fowler THV

measurement systems. There were ten separate titanium cathode strips, measured by three

operators (A, B, and C). Each operator measured each sample three separate times in a blind

study. A blind sequence means the operator does know what the part number being sampled but

the instructor viewing the Gage R&R does. The operators were trained at the same time with the

same procedure.

Capability Study Description

The capability study was performed after the chosen measurement system was

implemented at Ullegheny to show the difference in measurement shift with variation induced.

Thirty samples were measured to show the process capability of Ullegheny’s Z-Mill

manufacturing equipment.

41

Gage R&R and Capability Study Data Analysis

For both the Gage R&R test and the capability study, MINITAB Version 15 statistical

software will be used to evaluate the data. Minitab is a statistical analysis software that has been

validated by Company XYZ. The analysis of this software will help make the recommendations

for the measurement system through data driven decisions.

Gage R&R Data Analysis. Per Company XYZ’s variable Gage R&R procedure, the

raw data measured by the three operators will be analyzed in Minitab. The Gage R&R

(ANOVA) Crossed function in the Minitab software is the Company XYZ specified analysis

tool. The crossed formula assumes that the master samples can be selected such that each

operator can measure multiple parts from each master sample. Once the analysis has been

performed, the results will appear in the Minitab session window. The value that needs to be

reviewed is the Total Gage R&R percent tolerance (Study Variation/Tolerance). This value per

Company XYZ’s standard procedure needs to be lower than 30%, and the lower the value the

less measurement variation will be induced. Refer to Figure 11 for the Gage R&R percent

tolerance formula to be used.

Capability Study Data Analysis. The process capability analysis will be calculated in

Minitab using the Process Capability Sixpack function. This function looks at the raw data

provided and the upper specification and lower specification limits. The output results to be

analyzed are the Pp value and the normality per Company XYZ’s procedure. Per Company

XYZ’s process capability procedure, the Pp needs to exceed 1.00 and the Anderson Darling

normality needs to be above .05. If the normality is under .05 it means the data set isn’t a normal

distribution. Refer to Figure 12 for the formula to calculate Pp. Pp is being analyzed and not

Ppk, because Ppk is the process capability with respect to the specification limits. Since one

42

manufacturing lot will be evaluated with the measurement systems, there would be bias if a Ppk

was evaluated. The Pp analyzes the process capability with respect to the tolerance range. If

Ullegheny can hold a tight distribution, it will be simple to move the mean to the specification.

Also being evaluated is the range deviation to show how much deviation is present in the

measurement systems over fifteen samples. For the capability study evaluation, fifteen samples

from one manufacturing lot will be evaluated, and the measurements for all three systems will be

taken from the same location on the titanium coupon to eliminate variation between systems.

Table 1 Statistical Analysis Studies – Gage R&R and Capability Study

Total Gage R&R Value

Needs to be under 30%

Rankin

g

Capability Study Range Deviation -

Inches

Rankin

g

Capability Study Ppk Value - Normality

Pass/Fail

Rankin

g

Overall Ranking

for Statistical Testing

Vollmer

Fowler THV

Heidenhain

Quantitative Analysis of the Measurement System

A quantitative analysis is necessary for this study and is based on the measurement

system cost, ease of use, setup requirements, and calibration requirement. Ullegheny is very

sensitive to the measurement system cost because they have already invested in the Vollmer, so

implementing another device needs to be cost effective. In addition, the measurement system

that will be utilized will need to be as easy as the Vollmer or easier because of time constraints,

and it cannot require a special technician to operate the device. The setup of the Vollmer system

43

is very simple so the new system implemented will need to have a fast setup. The calibration

requirements for the next system need to have a semi-annual or annual expiration, which would

correlate with the rest of Ullegheny’s measurement equipment.

Table 2 Quantitative Analysis of the Measurement System

Measurement System

Cost

Rankin

g

Setup Requirements Rating 1-10 (1 being the

easiest)

Rankin

g

Inspection Difficulty Rating 1-

10 (1 being

the easiest)

Rankin

g

Calibration Requirements Rating 1-10 (1 being the

same as Ullegheny's

current system, 10 being on a different

calibration schedule)

Rankin

g

Overall Ranking for

the quantitative

analysis

Vollmer

Fowler THV

Heidenhain

Limitations

The measurement systems evaluated are limited to two systems besides the Vollmer

currently being utilized by Ullegheny. In an ideal world, hundreds of systems could be evaluated

but it is not practical for this study. The two best systems that met the cost and accuracy

requirements were chosen. The samples being measured by the operators are under strict

conditions of not using bias or coaching to drive the results. The limitations of the statistical

analysis were per Company XYZ’s procedure and only the Minitab software was utilized.

44

Chapter IV: Results

The purpose of this study was to identify a measurement system to accurately measure

the next generation JB3 titanium cathode thickness at Ullegheny. Two measurement systems

were identified to be evaluated in the study, as well as the current Vollmer which is utilized to

measure the current generation JB3 titanium cathode material thickness. A statistical analysis

consisting of a Gage R&R, capability study, and a capability range deviation analysis was

performed. In conjunction with the statistical analysis, a quantitative analysis was performed on

each of the systems to see how the different key aspects compare to each other.

Statistical Analysis: Gage R&R and Capability Study

The Gage R&R and capability studies were performed on the Heidenhain, Vollmer, and

Fowler THV measurement devices with the trained individuals. The two systems that were to be

evaluated for implementation at Ullegheny were the Fowler THV and the Heidenhain systems.

The Vollmer measurement device was included to benchmark against the two systems to be

evaluated for implementation. Both systems passed the Gage R&R test with total percent

tolerances below thirty, but the THV was very close to the specification limits. The Heidenhain

had better reproducibility and repeatability values than the THV, but only by four percent, which

in percent tolerance variation is a very close deviation. The Gage R&R results were higher than

anticipated.

45

Table 3 Statistical Analysis Studies – Gage R&R and Capability Study Results

Measurement System

Cost

Rankin

g

Setup Requirements Rating 1-10 (1

being the easiest)

Rankin

g

Inspection Difficulty

Rating 1-10 (1 being the

easiest)

Rankin

g

Calibration Requirements Rating 1-10 (1 being the same as Ullegheny's current system, 10 being on a

different calibration schedule)

Rankin

g

Overall Ranking for

the quantitative

analysis

Vollmer $33,000 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

Fowler THV $22,000 2 6 2 4 2 1 1 1

Heidenhain $12,000 1 8 3 7 3 1 1 1

The capability study measurements exemplified in Figure 19 were taken from fifteen

samples from one manufacturing lot. The two systems evaluated and the benchmark

measurement system measured from the same location to eliminate variation and to see the

difference in the range deviation between the systems, shown in the graph in Figure 20. The

Heidenhain had the least range deviation with .00003”, .00005” with the Vollmer, and finally

.000051” with the THV. The range deviations proved to show a high capability with all the

systems but once again, the measurements were taken from one manufacturing lot so there was

no thickness or surface roughness variation introduced. All three systems surpassed the Pp

requirement of 1.0 with the systems having extremely high values. When Pp values are in the

range of 3.58-5.95 for all three systems it is showing an extremely high process capability

without respect to the specification mean value.

46

Figure 19. Capability study for the three measurement devices evaluated

Figure 20. Capability study deviation chart for each of the measurement systems.

47

The statistical analysis testing proved the Heidenhain and THV systems were acceptable

systems to implement at Ullegheny by passing Company XYZ’s requirements. The Heidenhain

had virtually the same results than the THV measurement system for the capability range

analysis with .000050” and .000051” respectively. The Vollmer system failed the Gage R&R

with 37.45% total variation and thus the reason for implementing a more accurate measurement

device at Ullegheny.

Quantitative Analysis of the Measurement System Results

A quantitative analysis was performed on each of the systems based on the measurement

system cost, setup requirements, inspection difficulty, and calibration requirements. Since

Ullegheny already had the Vollmer measurement system in service, which was a costly device to

begin with and has semi-annual calibrations, another measurement system cannot be

overburdening.

Table 4 Quantitative Analysis Results of the Measurement Systems

Measurement System

Cost

Rankin

g

Setup Requirements Rating 1-10 (1 being the

easiest)

Rankin

g

Inspection Difficulty

Rating 1-10 (1 being the

easiest)

Rankin

g

Calibration Requirements Rating 1-10 (1

being the same as Ullegheny's

current system, 10 being on a different

calibration schedule)

Rankin

g

Overall Ranking for

the quantitative

analysis

Vollmer $33,000 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1

Fowler THV $22,000 2 6 2 4 2 1 1 1

Heidenhain $12,000 1 8 3 7 3 1 1 1

48

Measurement System Cost. The benchmark for the cost comparison was the Vollmer

VMF 1000 measurement system at Ullegheny. The Vollmer VMF 1000 system is $43,000 and

comes with a digital readout and the measurement device, which are separate from one another.

The Vollmer system is rather expensive compared to the THV and Heidenhain systems, but in

the precision measurement industry it’s priced fairly. Even though Ullegheny has had this

system in operation for roughly fifteen years, Vollmer still makes this system and it is readily

available (America, 2002).

The Fowler THV system retails for $22,600 and comes with a Heidenhain digital readout

display and the measurement system. The machine is very versatile so different contact tips are

also included in the price of the system. The specified contact surfaces, which are the dual .250”

diameter flat anvil posts were supplied with the measurement system for the quoted price. The

THV system lead time is roughly six to eight weeks because the manufacture builds them to suit

the customer needs (Fowler, 2011).

The Heidenhain CT6001 measurement system is the cheapest and most accurate out of

the three systems evaluated. The complete system cost is $11,500 which includes the digital

readout, CT6001 length gauge, granite table with post, switch box, and anvil tip. The price of

this system is rather a bargain in the metrology industry but the Heidenhain is limited to only

measuring lengths, compared to the THV which can measure an assortment of features

(Heidenhain, 2011).

49

Setup Requirements. The setup requirements were based upon starting the machine up

from its powered off state to being ready to measure samples of the JB3 titanium cathode

material thickness. This is a very important aspect because each time Ullegheny manufactures

the JB3 titanium; a quality technician will need to prepare the measurement device.

The Vollmer system was by far the easiest of the three systems to get from its powered

down state to being ready to measure. Simply turn the machine on and take a lint free cloth and

slide it under the contact points. Once the contact points are clear of any debris the machine can

be set to zero and it is ready to measure. The Vollmer system is very popular with the quality

and manufacturing technicians as it is easy to operate.

Ranking second out of the three machines was the Fowler THV system. The THV setup

was pretty straight forward from turning on the digital readout, inserting the .250” cylindrical

posts, cleaning the anvils, and then zeroing the machine. Since the anvil contact posts are

removable in the THV the flatness between the contact surfaces are extremely important. In the

calibration process lines are inscribed on the anvil posts because they need to be lined up when

setting up the machine. In the setup process, when the posts are inserted into the machine it is

critical the lines match up or the contact surfaces won’t be flat to each other as the calibration

company intended. A setscrew holds the anvil posts into the machine, and if the post is not fully

seated or the screws are not tight the anvil posts can slip while taking measurements. The setup

process can be somewhat tedious to make sure everything is lined up and tightened to ensure the

system will be accurate.

The Heidenhain setup process is very similar to the other systems evaluated in this study.

The digital readout needs to be powered on, granite and .250” diameter anvil surface cleaned,

and the plunger actuator lowered to the granite surface to be set at zero. The .250” diameter

50

anvil is threaded into the plunger actuator post so it is important this is tightened before setting

the machine to zero.

Inspection Difficulty. The Vollmer system was very easy to use by simply spreading the

contact points and inserting the titanium cathode material. The biggest complaint for the

Vollmer system was if the user would open the contact points and release them too fast, the

points would slam together and give a false readout. Since the Vollmer has contact points and

not surfaces like the other two systems, when the points are slammed they penetrate into the

material. It is very apparent when a user has slammed the anvils into the material because the

value can be off significantly. When operating this system, if the user is gentle and measuring

with care, the false readout issue isn’t systemic. This system is able to take measurements very

quick with high confidence. It is recommended to clean the contact points if the machine doesn’t

come back to the zero location after measuring a few samples.

The THV system proved to be almost as simple as the Vollmer to use. To measure a

sample the round wheel on the THV is turned to open the anvils, and then the wheel can be

rotated the opposite direction to close the anvils onto the material. Like the Vollmer system, the

THV anvils can be slammed into one another if the user isn’t taking care. Since there are two

.250” diameter anvils with the THV, the surfaces don’t penetrate the titanium material but can

compress it slightly. Since it’s not as apparent in the readout between a sample that had been

slammed or not slammed, this is a concern. The users were instructed to carefully bring the

contact surfaces to the titanium and thus the Gage R&R values were acceptable. The THV can

measure samples quickly but cleaning the anvils is essential. To clean the anvils a lint free tissue

is inserted between the anvils and the contacts surfaces are released to compress the tissue. Then

the tissue is to be pulled out. Since the JB43 titanium cathode material is very rough, the peaks

51

of the material break off and can stick to the anvils. If the surface particulates build up from not

being cleaned it will give false readings.

The Heidenhain measurement system was well received by the users in the Gage R&R

and capability study. The controller used to raise and lower the plunger actuator and needs to be

set at the ten foot pounds of force mode. To measure a sample, place the titanium on the granite

surface and, using the controller, lower the anvil until it contacts the material. Just like the THV

system, the anvil and granite need to be cleaned after each sample is measured to remove surface

particulates on the anvil. Particulate buildup was an issue in preliminary testing but solved with

the cleaning step prior to each measurement. The Heidenhain was more sensitive than the THV

with the particulate buildup, but since the machine is slightly more accurate, this may be why.

Particulate buildup can slow the measurement process up by cleaning the anvil each time, but it

is essential for accurate measurements.

Calibration Requirements

The Heidenhain, Fowler THV, and Vollmer measurement systems are to be calibrated

on a semi-annual basis. The calibration company that currently calibrates the Vollmer

measurement system at Ullegheny is able to calibrate the Heidenhain and THV system. The

calibration is very similar for the three systems so it will not be overburdening to implement the

THV or Heidenhain system. Calibrations typically take two-to-three hours depending on how

much time the technician needs to spend tweaking the device.

Overall Ranking for the Quantitative Analysis

The Vollmer was a great benchmarking system to the Fowler THV and Heidenhain

systems to baseline what Ullegheny is currently using to what they will be using to measure the

JB3 titanium cathode material thickness. In every aspect, the Vollmer was an easier device to

52

use, but not as accurate as the THV or Heidenhain systems. The THV and Heidenhain were very

similar with the setup and measurement ease of use but the Heidenhain was more sensitive to

surface particulate buildup.

53

Chapter V: Discussion

Company XYZ is an industry leader of producing human implantable defibrillators. The

most important components of the defibrillator are the capacitors. The capacitors are charged via

the power supply from the battery and then a jolt is delivered through the leads to the heart. The

materials that make up the capacitor are the paper insulators, anodes, and cathodes. The next

generation defibrillator at Company XYZ needs to be smaller in volume than the current

generation but deliver the same amount of energy. The next generation capacitor is called the

JB3 and this research paper focuses on the titanium cathode material.

Ullegheny is a titanium metal rolling supplier for Company XYZ and makes the current

JB3 titanium cathode material. The challenge with the JB3 compared to the JB2 titanium

cathode is the roughened titanium material. The overall material thickness of .0009 +/- .0002” is

the same on both materials but their surface finish requirement is dramatically different. The

JB2 has a surface finish of 10 +/- 2 Ra and the JB3 has a 23 Ra minimum. The JB2 material has

a very smooth high finish where the JB3 is a rough textured material. Since the JB3 capacitor

has less volume than the JB2 material, the added material surface roughness is how Company

XYZ is increasing the surface area.

The measurement specification required measuring the overall material thickness, and the

current JB2 method of measurement did not translate well to the JB3 material. Ullegheny uses a

Vollmer measurement system to measure the JB2 titanium cathode material and the anvil tips are

spherical shaped. With a very smooth surface finish the spherical shaped anvils can accurately

measure the material thickness. When the Vollmer attempted to measure the JB3 titanium

cathode, it could not capture the overall material thickness because it measures a point and not a

specific area. This prompted the research study to find a measurement device that could measure

54

the overall JB3 titanium cathode material thickness and pass the Company XYZ evaluation

requirements.

The two measurement devices evaluated were the Heidenhain CT6001 and the Fowler

THV. These systems were chosen because they are standard measurement devices in the

medical device industry. The study was to evaluate both devices and select one to be

implemented at Ullegheny to measure the JB3 Company XYZ titanium cathode material

thickness. A statistical analysis and quantitative analysis were performed on the system with a

comparison to the baseline Vollmer VMF1000, which currently measures the JB2 material

thickness.

Measurement Device Selection

The Heidenhain CT6001 device was chosen to be implemented at Ullegheny to measure

the JB3 titanium cathode thickness. The Heidenhain had better statistical evaluation results,

which were the most important area to be evaluated in this study. The Gage R&R yielded a total

percent tolerance value at 25.5%, where the Company XYZ specification maximum was 30%.

The THV’s Gage R&R value was extremely close to the 30% limit and this was a concern. Also,

the Heidenhain’s capability study proved to have less range deviation than the THV. The Pp

value from the Heidenhain was a very tight distribution while the THV was not as concentrated.

One of the key advantages of the Heidenhain system when compared to the THV is cost.

The Heidenhain was over ten thousand dollars cheaper while being more accurate. Although the

THV is a more versatile measurement device Ullegheny’s plans are to only use the implemented

measurement device to measure the JB3 titanium cathode material thickness. The setup and

inspection difficulties are very similar between both the systems, with the Heidenhain needing

more setup time. Since the Heidenhain device is more accurate, it’s understandable that the

55

setup and inspection technique can be cumbersome at times. Since the Vollmer system is very

easy to use it will be only a slight change for the Ullegheny technicians to start using the

Heidenhain measurement system.

With the medical device industry pushing for smaller and less invasive devices, quality

constraints for suppliers will continue to increase. Suppliers such as Ullegheny will have to

accept that it may be more time consuming using the Heidenhain measurement system compared

to the Vollmer, but the accuracy results are a priority. With material tolerances tightening with

each product generation the statistical quality requirements still need to be met.

Limitations

In this study, the measurement devices tested were limited to two devices that are capable

of meeting the JB3 material thickness specification. There may be more accurate measurement

devices on the market but the ones chosen to be tested in this study are industry proven devices.

The measurement devices also had to be economical because at the end of the study, Ullegheny

was to purchase and implement the optimal device and price is a concern. Also the measurement

devices that were selected to be tested didn’t need any abnormal environmental controls because

Ullegheny’s quality lab only meets ISO 9001 requirements.

Conclusions

This study was very beneficial for Company XYZ because development on the JB3

titanium cathode was halted until a measurement device that could be implemented at Ullegheny

to measure the material thickness. Prior to the study, without having an accurate measurement

device and procedure to measure the JB3 material thickness, there was no reason to move ahead

with the development. Once the Heidenhain measurement system was implemented at

56

Ullegheny, the manufacturing and processing improved, to provide JB3 titanium cathode

material to Company XYZ.

57

References

America, V. (2002). VMF brochure . Retrieved from Vollmer America:

www.vollmeramerica.com

Benbow, D. W. (2002). The certified quality engineer handbook. Milwaukee: American Society

for Quality.

Breyfogle, F. W. (1999). Implementing six sigma. Austin, TX: Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Fowler. (2011). Fowler/Trimos THV System. Retrieved from Fowler:

http://www.fvfowler.com/thv.html

Heidenhain. (2011). Heidenhain encoders CT6001. Retrieved from Heidenhain Encoders:

http://www.heidenhainencoders.co.uk/heidenhain-ct6001-60mmmeasuringrange_74

MSA. (2010). Measurement systems analysis reference manual, 4th Ed.,. Chrysler Corp., Ford

Motor Corp., General Motors Corp.,.

58

Appendix A: Capability Study Raw and Analysis Data

CAPABILITY STUDY OF THE DEVICES

Equipment Used: THV Pressure Micrometer

Settings: .28 Ft/Lb Applied, .250 Flat Diameter Anvil

Location: BSC Qual Lab

.0009 +/- .002"

Sample NumberFowler THV Measurement Data

1 0.001009

2 0.001006

3 0.001005

4 0.001010

5 0.001051

6 0.001048

7 0.001056

8 0.001056

9 0.001042

10 0.001043

11 0.001049

12 0.001046

13 0.001034

14 0.001032

15 0.001026

Min 0.001005

Max 0.001056

Avg 0.001034

Range 0.000051

Heidenhain Measurement Data

1 0.00096

2 0.00096

3 0.00099

4 0.00097

5 0.00098

6 0.00099

7 0.00097

8 0.00098

9 0.00097

10 0.00098

11 0.00097

12 0.00099

13 0.00096

14 0.00098

15 0.00099

Min 0.000960

Max 0.000990

Avg 0.000976

Range 0.000030

Vollmer Measurement Data

1 0.00084

2 0.00087

3 0.00086

4 0.00086

5 0.00087

6 0.00089

7 0.00086

8 0.00087

9 0.00085

10 0.00086

11 0.00089

12 0.00085

13 0.00084

14 0.00088

15 0.00087

Min 0.000840

Max 0.000890

Avg 0.000864

Range 0.000050

Vollm

er

Pre

cis

ion S

uper

Mic

rom

ete

r

Accura

cy:

???

Alle

gheny's

Measure

ment

Gauge

TH

V S

uper

Mic

rom

ete

r

Accura

cy:

.000020"

Heid

enhain

Pre

cis

ion L

ength

Gauge

Accura

cy:

.000002"

59

151413121110987654321

0.00090

0.00085

0.00080

In

div

idu

al V

alu

e

_X=0.000864

UCL=0.0009153

LCL=0.0008127

151413121110987654321

0.000050

0.000025

0.000000

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=0.00001929

UCL=0.00006301

LCL=0

15105

0.00088

0.00086

0.00084

Observation

Va

lue

s

0.00

108

0.0010

2

0.00

096

0.00

090

0.00

084

0.0007

8

0.00

072

LSL USL

LSL 0.0007

USL 0.0011

Specifications

0.000920.000880.000840.00080

Within

Overall

Specs

StDev 1.70973e-005

C p 3.9

C pk 3.2

Within

StDev 1.54919e-005

Pp 4.3

Ppk 3.53

C pm *

O v erall

Process Capability Sixpack of Vollmer Measurement Data

I Chart

Moving Range Chart

Last 15 Observations

Capability Histogram

Normal Prob PlotA D: 0.366, P: 0.387

Capability Plot

151413121110987654321

0.001000

0.000975

0.000950

In

div

idu

al V

alu

e

_X=0.000976

UCL=0.00101589

LCL=0.00093611

151413121110987654321

0.00004

0.00002

0.00000

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=0.000015

UCL=0.00004901

LCL=0

15105

0.000990

0.000975

0.000960

Observation

Va

lue

s

0.00

108

0.0010

2

0.00

096

0.00

090

0.00

084

0.0007

8

0.00

072

LSL USL

LSL 0.0007

USL 0.0011

Specifications

0.001000.000980.000960.00094

Within

Overall

Specs

StDev 1.32979e-005

C p 5.01

C pk 3.11

Within

StDev 1.12122e-005

Pp 5.95

Ppk 3.69

C pm *

O v erall

Process Capability Sixpack of Heidenhain Measurement Data

I Chart

Moving Range Chart

Last 15 Observations

Capability Histogram

Normal Prob PlotA D: 0.671, P: 0.063

Capability Plot

1~=~:~1 1. >z7t061

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

~~~::::=:::1 1. t;;:;~ : : ::::1 l .. · · ~ · ··· ~ · · .· ]

I! Jl ID i '

}---}---} --t-~ - i I I I ---'1"-- t"- . I I ---1-

1 I

I! l iD I I I M M I I I I I e I I --r--r--T--,.- - , · r --r-1 I I I I I

. -t- - t- - t' - ~ - -1- --t- -- .... --I I I I

.-- I - I +- :--+--L R ft R f

CJ:

60

151413121110987654321

0.00104

0.00102

0.00100

In

div

idu

al V

alu

e

_X=0.0010342

UCL=0.00105415

LCL=0.00101425

151413121110987654321

0.00004

0.00002

0.00000

Mo

vin

g R

an

ge

__MR=0.0000075

UCL=0.00002450

LCL=0

15105

0.00104

0.00102

0.00100

Observation

Va

lue

s

0.00

108

0.0010

2

0.00

096

0.00

090

0.00

084

0.0007

8

0.00

072

LSL USL

LSL 0.0007

USL 0.0011

Specifications

0.001100.001050.00100

Within

Overall

Specs

StDev 6.64894e-006

C p 10.03

C pk 3.3

Within

StDev 1.86325e-005

Pp 3.58

Ppk 1.18

C pm *

O v erall

11

111

1

1

Process Capability Sixpack of Fowler THV Measurement Data

I Chart

Moving Range Chart

Last 15 Observations

Capability Histogram

Normal Prob PlotA D: 0.711, P: 0.050

Capability Plot

('"'?':~ ~

L .... .. · ·. · · · ·I I I I

I! _l iD ' I I I --r ---1----T

I

~~~ ~----~----r - L ___ .J ___ L

. I I

"

61

Appendix B: Gage R&R Raw and Analysis Data

Part

Fowler THV

Brian Trial

1

Fowler THV

Brian Trial

2

Fowler THV

Brian Trial

3

Fowler THV

Tom Trial

1

Fowler THV

Tom Trial

2

Fowler THV

Tom Trial

3

Fowler THV

Tony Trial

1

Fowler THV

Tony Trial

2

Fowler THV

Tony Trial

3 Deviation

1 0.00064 0.00065 0.00062 0.00063 0.00063 0.00065 0.00063 0.00066 0.00066 0.00004

2 0.00098 0.00094 0.00094 0.00093 0.00097 0.00093 0.00096 0.00097 0.00092 0.00006

3 0.00076 0.00065 0.00067 0.00066 0.00062 0.00064 0.00066 0.00068 0.00063 0.00014

4 0.00133 0.00135 0.00136 0.00132 0.00134 0.00135 0.00134 0.00134 0.00136 0.00004

5 0.00127 0.00131 0.00127 0.00130 0.00130 0.00130 0.00130 0.00127 0.00128 0.00004

6 0.00136 0.00133 0.00138 0.00137 0.00138 0.00136 0.00134 0.00135 0.00132 0.00006

7 0.00133 0.00136 0.00135 0.00133 0.00135 0.00132 0.00131 0.00131 0.00135 0.00005

8 0.00096 0.00095 0.00096 0.00094 0.00092 0.00093 0.00097 0.00095 0.00093 0.00005

9 0.00097 0.00097 0.00098 0.00095 0.00095 0.00095 0.00104 0.00094 0.00100 0.00010

10 0.00090 0.00093 0.00088 0.00088 0.00087 0.00090 0.00086 0.00091 0.00089 0.00007

Fowler THV Gage R&R Raw Data

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

400

200

0

Perc

ent

% Contribution

% Study Var

% Tolerance

0.00010

0.00005

0.00000

Sam

ple

Range

_R=0.0000357

UCL=0.0000918

LCL=0

Brian Tom Tony

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Sam

ple

Mean

__X=0.0010383UCL=0.0010748LCL=0.0010018

Brian Tom Tony

10987654321

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Parts

TonyTomBrian

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Operators

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Parts

Avera

ge

Brian

Tom

Tony

Operators

Gage name:

Date of study : 11/1/2011

Reported by : Brian Koty k

Tolerance:

Misc:

Components of Variation

R Chart by Operators

Xbar Chart by Operators

Results by Parts

Results by Operators

Operators * Parts Interaction

THV Gage R&R .0009 +/- .0002" Ti Cathode Thickness

Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.

Gage R&R for Results

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method Gage R&R for Results

62

Gage name:

Date of study: 11/1/2011

Reported by: Brian Kotyk

Tolerance:

Misc:

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source DF SS MS F P

Parts 9 0.0000062 0.0000007 1175.13 0.000

Operators 2 0.0000000 0.0000000 2.08 0.154

Parts * Operators 18 0.0000000 0.0000000 1.18 0.308

Repeatability 60 0.0000000 0.0000000

Total 89 0.0000062

Alpha to remove interaction term = 0.25

Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source DF SS MS F P

Parts 9 0.0000062 0.0000007 1329.70 0.000

Operators 2 0.0000000 0.0000000 2.36 0.101

Repeatability 78 0.0000000 0.0000000

Total 89 0.0000062

Gage R&R %Contribution

Source VarComp (of VarComp)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000000 0.70

Repeatability 0.0000000 0.67

Reproducibility 0.0000000 0.03

Operators 0.0000000 0.03

Part-To-Part 0.0000001 99.30

Total Variation 0.0000001 100.00

Process tolerance = 0.0004

Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Source StdDev (SD) (5.15 * SD) (%SV) (SV/Toler)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000232 0.0001195 8.38 29.86

Repeatability 0.0000227 0.0001168 8.20 29.21

Reproducibility 0.0000048 0.0000249 1.74 6.21

Operators 0.0000048 0.0000249 1.74 6.21

Part-To-Part 0.0002757 0.0014197 99.65 354.93

Total Variation 0.0002766 0.0014247 100.00 356.18

Number of Distinct Categories = 16

Gage R&R for Results

______________________________________________________________________________

63

Part

Heidenhain

Brian Trial

1

Heidenhain

Brian Trial

2

Heidenhain

Brian Trial

3

Heidenhain

Tom Trial

1

Heidenhain

Tom Trial

2

Heidenhain

Tom Trial

3

Heidenhain

Tony Trial

1

Heidenhain

Tony Trial

2

Heidenhain

Tony Trial

3 Deviation

1 0.00068 0.00069 0.00068 0.00069 0.00069 0.00068 0.00070 0.00069 0.00070 0.00002

2 0.00102 0.00100 0.00100 0.00099 0.00100 0.00100 0.00099 0.00101 0.00099 0.00003

3 0.00082 0.00071 0.00073 0.00069 0.00069 0.00067 0.00070 0.00072 0.00070 0.00015

4 0.00139 0.00141 0.00139 0.00139 0.00137 0.00139 0.00138 0.00138 0.00139 0.00004

5 0.00133 0.00134 0.00134 0.00133 0.00134 0.00134 0.00134 0.00133 0.00132 0.00002

6 0.00139 0.00140 0.00141 0.00141 0.00142 0.00140 0.00140 0.00141 0.00139 0.00003

7 0.00140 0.00139 0.00139 0.00137 0.00139 0.00138 0.00137 0.00137 0.00138 0.00003

8 0.00099 0.00099 0.00100 0.00098 0.00098 0.00099 0.00103 0.00098 0.00097 0.00006

9 0.00101 0.00101 0.00102 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00107 0.00101 0.00107 0.00006

10 0.00094 0.00097 0.00094 0.00094 0.00093 0.00093 0.00093 0.00094 0.00095 0.00004

Heidenhain Gage R&R Raw Data

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

400

200

0

Perc

ent

% Contribution

% Study Var

% Tolerance

0.00010

0.00005

0.00000

Sam

ple

Range

_R=0.000021

UCL=0.0000541

LCL=0

Brian Tom Tony

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Sam

ple

Mean

__X=0.0010867UCL=0.0011082LCL=0.0010652

Brian Tom Tony

10987654321

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Parts

TonyTomBrian

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Operators

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0.0012

0.0009

0.0006

Parts

Avera

ge

Brian

Tom

Tony

Operators

Gage name:

Date of study :

Reported by :

Tolerance:

Misc:

Components of Variation

R Chart by Operators

Xbar Chart by Operators

Results by Parts

Results by Operators

Operators * Parts Interaction

Heidenhain Gage R&R Study for .0009 +/- .002" Ti Cathode

Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.

Retrieving project from file: 'C:\DOCUMENTS AND

SETTINGS\G044904\DESKTOP\MEASUREMENT SYSTEM SELECTION\GRR TEST

DATA\HEIDENHAIN GRR TEST.MPJ'

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source DF SS MS F P

Parts 9 0.0000061 0.0000007 1144.53 0.000

Operators 2 0.0000000 0.0000000 1.93 0.174

Parts * Operators 18 0.0000000 0.0000000 2.28 0.009

Repeatability 60 0.0000000 0.0000000

Total 89 0.0000061

j .. = Jl18 I ~~~

~I li: ~I

V[L~~~I 111:':::1°

64

Alpha to remove interaction term = 0.25

Gage R&R %Contribution

Source VarComp (of VarComp)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000000 0.51

Repeatability 0.0000000 0.34

Reproducibility 0.0000000 0.17

Operators 0.0000000 0.02

Operators*Parts 0.0000000 0.15

Part-To-Part 0.0000001 99.49

Total Variation 0.0000001 100.00

Process tolerance = 0.0004

Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Source StdDev (SD) (5.15 * SD) (%SV) (SV/Toler)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000197 0.0001016 7.17 25.40

Repeatability 0.0000161 0.0000830 5.86 20.76

Reproducibility 0.0000114 0.0000586 4.13 14.64

Operators 0.0000043 0.0000221 1.56 5.52

Operators*Parts 0.0000105 0.0000542 3.83 13.56

Part-To-Part 0.0002744 0.0014133 99.74 353.32

Total Variation 0.0002751 0.0014169 100.00 354.24

Number of Distinct Categories = 19

Gage R&R for Results

______________________________________________________________________________

Part

Vollmer

Brian Trial

1

Vollmer

Brian Trial

2

Vollmer

Brian Trial

3

Vollmer

Tom Trial

1

Vollmer

Tom Trial

2

Vollmer

Tom Trial

3

Vollmer

Tony Trial

1

Vollmer

Tony Trial

2

Vollmer

Tony Trial

3 Deviation

1 0.00060 0.00063 0.00058 0.00054 0.00053 0.00055 0.00058 0.00057 0.00054 0.00010

2 0.00090 0.00092 0.00091 0.00087 0.00089 0.00090 0.00089 0.00089 0.00088 0.00005

3 0.00040 0.00041 0.00039 0.00039 0.00037 0.00039 0.00037 0.00037 0.00039 0.00004

4 0.00115 0.00119 0.00115 0.00116 0.00122 0.00117 0.00115 0.00114 0.00114 0.00008

5 0.00114 0.00118 0.00109 0.00115 0.00118 0.00119 0.00112 0.00113 0.00116 0.00010

6 0.00117 0.00117 0.00117 0.00115 0.00116 0.00119 0.00111 0.00117 0.00115 0.00008

7 0.00116 0.00115 0.00117 0.00116 0.00114 0.00116 0.00106 0.00114 0.00111 0.00011

8 0.00098 0.00091 0.00091 0.00096 0.00093 0.00094 0.00093 0.00092 0.00093 0.00007

9 0.00106 0.00097 0.00096 0.00096 0.00095 0.00097 0.00096 0.00095 0.00094 0.00012

10 0.00074 0.00074 0.00078 0.00081 0.00079 0.00079 0.00082 0.00082 0.00080 0.00008

Vollmer Gage R&R Raw Data

65

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

300

150

0

Perc

ent

% Contribution

% Study Var

% Tolerance

0.00010

0.00005

0.00000

Sam

ple

Range

_R=0.0000353

UCL=0.0000910

LCL=0

Brian Tom Tony

0.00100

0.00075

0.00050Sam

ple

Mean __

X=0.0009152UCL=0.0009514LCL=0.0008791

Brian Tom Tony

10987654321

0.0012

0.0008

0.0004

Parts

TonyTomBrian

0.0012

0.0008

0.0004

Operators

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

0.00100

0.00075

0.00050

PartsA

vera

ge

Brian

Tom

Tony

Operators

Gage name:

Date of study :

Reported by :

Tolerance:

Misc:

Components of Variation

R Chart by Operators

Xbar Chart by Operators

Results by Parts

Results by Operators

Operators * Parts Interaction

Vollmer Gage R&R Study .0009 +/- .0002" Ti Cathode Thickness

Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method

Two-Way ANOVA Table With Interaction Source DF SS MS F P

Parts 9 0.0000058 0.0000006 475.164 0.000

Operators 2 0.0000000 0.0000000 2.053 0.157

Parts * Operators 18 0.0000000 0.0000000 2.617 0.003

Repeatability 60 0.0000000 0.0000000

Total 89 0.0000059

Alpha to remove interaction term = 0.25

Gage R&R %Contribution

Source VarComp (of VarComp)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000000 1.17

Repeatability 0.0000000 0.72

Reproducibility 0.0000000 0.45

Operators 0.0000000 0.07

Operators*Parts 0.0000000 0.39

Part-To-Part 0.0000001 98.83

Total Variation 0.0000001 100.00

66

Process tolerance = 0.0004

Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Source StdDev (SD) (5.15 * SD) (%SV) (SV/Toler)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000291 0.0001498 10.81 37.45

Repeatability 0.0000228 0.0001173 8.47 29.33

Reproducibility 0.0000181 0.0000932 6.72 23.30

Operators 0.0000069 0.0000356 2.57 8.89

Operators*Parts 0.0000167 0.0000861 6.22 21.53

Part-To-Part 0.0002675 0.0013776 99.41 344.40

Total Variation 0.0002691 0.0013857 100.00 346.43

Number of Distinct Categories = 12

Gage R&R for Results

67

Appendix C: Heidenhain work instructions for Ullegheny Ludlum for measuring

the JB3 Company XYZ titanium cathode material thickness.

Heidenhain Length Gauge Work Instructions for Ullegheny Ludlum

These work instructions are intended for measuring the Company XYZ JB3

titanium cathode material thickness

A - Setting up the Heidenhain – ID No 31415092F

1) Power the Heidenhain ND 287 readout to the On position – The power switch is on the back of the unit.

68

2) Press any key to get the readout screen to appear 3) With switch box move the length gauge slightly down until the reference mark is crossed.

This will produce a live readout

4) Make sure the force is set to “3” which is the maximum Newton’s force applied by the

Heidenhain

69

5) Clean the System –

- With lint free wipes and alcohol clean wipe the granite base, flat anvil, and .005” Master block.

- Lower the indicator onto a lint free wipe then pull it out. This will help clean any residue off of the surfaces. Make sure no small pieces of lint are trapped between the indicator and granite surface. *** This step is essential for the machine to produce accurate measurements ***

70

6) Master the machine – Lower the indicator until it touches the granite base. Press “0” into the readout and hit enter. Move the indicator up and down a few times to verify it consistently reads out 0.0000” when the anvil is contacting the granite base. *** This is a very important step ***

7) Measure the cleaned .005” gauge block to verify the system has been mastered correctly.

.005” Master Gauge Block

71

B - Measuring the Raw Material

1) Place pristine wrinkle free material under the indicator. Lower the indicator until the digital readout stops descending in value. This will be the measured thickness to record.

2) Before each measurement is taken lower the indicator until it contacts the surface. Verify

the readout is at 0.0000” and if it isn’t there is debris on the indicator or granite surface. Refer to section A4 to clean the contacts and re-zero the device. This is very important because if you don’t verify it’s zeroing out before each measurement you will get false readings.

72

C – Shutting down the Heidenhain.

1) Raise the indicator until it reaches the upper stop point. (Do not leave the indicator in the lowered position!)

2) Turn power button on the readout display to the off position.